Originally Posted By greenbean He very well could have written it then but I don't know, that part does not really matter to me. I am just happy he did. I can't wait to see what his interpretation of the poem is.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror The animation looks accomplished, but dead. Again, it looks like the cut scenes done for some of the most expensive Video Games... And not terribly more exciting than that.
Originally Posted By greenbean To each his own! I think the film looks pretty good. They have really come a long way since the Polar Express. For me though I am going to have to just see it to make any calls on it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I saw the movie last night - in IMAX 3D. I think it's a crowd pleaser and will be a big moneymaker. For one thing, angelina jolie is nude for the entire movie - she never wears any clothes. Granted, she's "animated" so it isn't really her, but virtual nudity is still pretty darn entertaining. She's smooth and barbie like "down there" and nipple-less, but visually arresting even so. And our hero has a thing for getting naked too, so it's fun for everyone. And yes, it's a PG13 rating. Not sure who thinks that's important, or why. If it's a good movie, I'll go no matter what the rating is. But the movie has a fair bit of nudity, and if it was 'live' and 'really for real' it might have even gotten an NC-17. Our hero has a protracted nude scene while kicking monster butt, and he's as buff as anything outta '300'. Even though the actor is really fifty and flabby and balding, through the magic of hollywood he's now a six foot six nordic "beohunk" with rippling abs and thunderous thighs. Even angelina jolie benefits from the artist's kindness. Her somewhat spindly arms and legs are now perfectly proportioned into a classic figure of feminine beauty. There's no reason to see it in 2D if you can find it in 3D, and IMAX is even better. Just lots of fun. Big action setpieces, and zemekis is taking full advantage of the flexibility with the technology. Lots of impressive camera work where we're flying over the frozen tundra, through thickets of thorns, into creepy dragons lairs - all just visually sumptuous. The violence is plentiful, but mostly played for laughs. Bodies are pulled in two and flung to opposite sides of the room, heads are chewed, eyeballs gouged, and internal organs ripped from their proper resting place - with all the requisite squirting of blood and gore - in 3-D! - but somehow it's all just too fantastical to take seriously. The dialog is less than great, but who cares? Women aren't given much to do other than fret and worry and stave off attacks from monsters and lecherous men. Robin Wright Penn wasn't given many lines. She observes everything but doesn't say much to let us know what she's thinking about all that she sees. The vacant eye problem that was so noticable in 'polar express' is lessened but still there. For me it wasn't a problem because the story is set in the dark ages, and it lends a surreal dream-like quality, like a tale so old that it's only half remembered. Anthony Hopkins does a serviceable job as our king with the monster problem, and john malkovich is fun as his minion. He's even got a mini-minion of his own that he kicks and beats regularly. Kids? That's a hard call. The bountiful faux-nudity is possibly more of an issue than the cartoony violence. But it's a trade-off in that the movie is so much fun visually that it'd be a shame to skip it just because you don't want to get junior overstimulated. And really - what better way to get his overactive imagination kicked into gear than with a hyper-realized angelina jolie?
Originally Posted By DAR So what you're saying is that Brad Pitt is a lucky dude? I really want to see this, I think one of theatres around here is playing it in 3D so I'm going to try to catch it. One of the ladies I work with said she never heard of Beowulf. I asked her if she ever went to school.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So what you're saying is that Brad Pitt is a lucky dude? << There's an old Bill Maher line - "Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and somewhere there's a guy that's tired of boffing her".
Originally Posted By DAR Just on a personal note I'd probably pick Jennifer Aniston over Angelina Jolie, only because Angelina might kill me during you know... And to keep it on topic I'm hoping to see the movie after the Packers win to go to 9-1
Originally Posted By dshyates Saw it today and I enjoyed it. It was pretty much what I was expecting. 300 in 3D with a 3D Anjolina Jolie, naked.
Originally Posted By mawnck What do Beowulf and the Carousel of Progress have in common? A very interesting article here: <a href="http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/capturing-performance.html" target="_blank">http://animationguildblog.blog spot.com/2007/11/capturing-performance.html</a>
Originally Posted By lasvegasgirl Saw the movie too................... hubby and I thought it was a huge waste of time and money ! Too bad they couldn't have picked someone else other than Angelina Jolie to be it this. Can't stand her ! Whoever said she could "act", was sleep deprived..... even just her voice is irritating ! We went with 2 other couples, and they thought it was pretty dumb, too. We were hoping for more talent, but, it was not to be I guess !
Originally Posted By hightp The movie news said it underperformed in it's opening weekend, and around here, it didn't get a good review. From the looks of it, it'll be gone from the theaters in about 2 weeks (with the holiday movies starting), so if you want to see it, better go quick.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It was the number #1 movie over the weekend, with over $28 million. Number #2 was 'Bee Movie' with half the total - or $14 million. There was an article in yesterday's paper (that I can't find) that showed that a disproportionate percentage of the grosses came from 3D and IMAX showings. >> Too bad they couldn't have picked someone else other than Angelina Jolie to be in this. Can't stand her ! << Women don't like her - they like jennifer. But really - she's only got two scenes in the film, and they're brief. I'm curious - did you see it in IMAX or 3D? If you just saw it in a regular old cineplex, I'd probably agree. The attraction with this film is the visuals. Without that, it's just another monster movie.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It was the number #1 movie over the weekend, with over $28 million.<< Production costs were something like $150 million. This opening, regardless of what number it was, was a big financial disappointment. Kind of like Cars. <------runs away, terribly fast
Originally Posted By mawnck <-----comes back to report that . . . I saw it! Here are my impresssions. (1) It is a 3D movie. Period. 3D is the entire point of its existence. If it weren't for the 3D, it would be a difficult slog. If you are thinking about going to see it in a not-3D theater, or waiting to watch it on TV (even on a 150-inch 2160p megaplasma with 11:1 surround sound), don't bother. You won't like it. You need the 3D to take your mind off the script. (2) It took me 45 minutes to get over how creepy the people looked and get sort of into the movie. (3) That being said, I **did** get over how creepy the people looked and got sort of into the movie after 45 minutes. They're improving. (5) That's not to say that I'm endorsing motion capture. It still ain't right. There are still frequent cases of marionette-itis, and even after the 45 minutes, there were numerous instances where I was jerked back out of the adventure by some random piece of CGI wrongness. (4) The eyes look a heck of a lot better than in Polar Express, but now they really gotta work on the skin. It looks like latex. Data in Star Trek had the same skin. Didn't Pixar solve this problem like 3 movies ago? I think my starting to sort of enjoy this movie 45 minutes in coincided with my finally figuring out that it was the skin that was bugging me the most. (4) The reason they didn't make it in live-action was obvious (to me). There was no way in heck they could have done all the camera swooshes and wacky angles and cheesy 3D effects (arrows! arrows!) without pooters. If it weren't for the cheesy 3D, there would have been no reason to not make it in live-action. (11) Is it animation? Heck if I know. Not sure if it matters. Unless it gets nominated for an Oscar. (7) Fun fact, I had no idea: Even totally still and leafless tree branches with no wind make a really loud swoosh when you zoom past them in 3D. (9) Yes, I am editing this post a lot as I'm composing it. Yes, I did give up on keeping the numbers in order. What's it to you? (6) Anything else I would have to say about this movie was already said better by Gadzuux in post 24. Please note, though, boys, that Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother only gets a couple minutes of total screen time. (7) Best credit: "Grendel's mother designed by . . ." (8) Second best credit: "No animal was harmed in the making of this film."
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Even though the actor is really fifty and flabby and balding, through the magic of hollywood he's now a six foot six nordic "beohunk" with rippling abs and thunderous thighs.<< To each his own, I guess. I think he's still pretty hot.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I saw it last night in 3D. I didn't think it was a GREAT movie, but I could certainly think of worse ways to spend two hours. Like, maybe watching "American Idol." I wish they'd gone all out and made this a movie for adults. I really long for the days when there was sci-fi/fantasy that wasn't specifically aimed at teens 'n tweens. ("Blade Runner," anyone? At least Ridley Scott's "final cut" will have a brief theatrical run in December.) Oh, and did those of you who caught the movie in 3D get to see the trailer for Gaiman's "Coraline?" Not at ALL what I pictured/had hoped it would be...but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.
Originally Posted By DAR The actor who plays Beowulf is Ray Winstone who is best known as Mr. French in the Departed.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I hope this link works - it shows a "before and after" of Ray Winstone. Quite a remarkable difference. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3e4zwu" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3e4zwu</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Oh, and did those of you who caught the movie in 3D get to see the trailer for Gaiman's "Coraline?" Not at ALL what I pictured/had hoped it would be...but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.<< There wasn't much to that trailer. I was kind of irked with it. Why do a 3D trailer and not show squat?
