Beowulf!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think that nudity in general is pretty tame. After all, it is the default state of humanity, and the only style of clothing that's always in fashion. After seeing the old king's CGI manteats flopping around it's all downhill as far as aesthetics are concerned.

I liked this movie when I saw it in theaters, in 3D. I like the twist they put on the story, but think that they still managed to cling to the original spirit and intent of the narrative (buff guy goes around killing monsters with his forhead, is that cool or what? is the original spirit and intent, IMO). I thought some of the "I, AM BEOWUULF!" bits were overdone, and  maybe it would make some sense for beowulf to wear a singlet or armor or something when he goes after grendel's mother.

Overall, I give it a B+.

[Fortis]

Well personally, seeing blood and entrails is worse than seeing a man's bottom.  Violence is way more disgusting to me than naked humans.  If the naked humans were having graphic intercourse I think it would be justified in being rated R or worse, but sideboobs and bottoms don't rate high with me.  But whatever.

Well my post that says seeing a monster pulling somebody apart is awesome was a joke. I agree that graphic violence is worse than a butt or the side of a breast, but that still doesn't mean I want to see either.

So I agree with you, and personally I don't think I'm missing anything by not seeing movies that are graphically violent, or have nudity in them.

[bettertomorrowamy]

Well, I liked the movie but the story was kind of disjointed.  It does get better the third time you watch it.
I'd give it a B-

[Pak-Man]

 I don't think the movie was necessarily bad, but it didn't really do anything for me either. Although the CGI is nice and all, I'm not quite understanding why it was made this way (other than cost) and not live action. I hate it when CGI is used for no reason. I can't stand movies made with it when they could have been traditionally animated as well. Does anyone want to see the real semi-nude Angelina Jolie, or a fake CGI one?

I realize it's all about cost and what not, but if anything, it's then the lazy, cheap way to make a movie. And we're supposed to be blown away by that?

On the topic of violence and what not, I think violence can be a useful tool in storytelling. It becomes grotesque to me only when it's unnecessary to the plot. The same with CGI. Both need to be used as tools, not as the point of the whole movie.

[Tyrant]

I don't think the movie was necessarily bad, but it didn't really do anything for me either. Although the CGI is nice and all, I'm not quite understanding why it was made this way (other than cost) and not live action. I hate it when CGI is used for no reason. I can't stand movies made with it when they could have been traditionally animated as well. Does anyone want to see the real semi-nude Angelina Jolie, or a fake CGI one?

I realize it's all about cost and what not, but if anything, it's then the lazy, cheap way to make a movie. And we're supposed to be blown away by that?

On the topic of violence and what not, I think violence can be a useful tool in storytelling. It becomes grotesque to me only when it's unnecessary to the plot. The same with CGI. Both need to be used as tools, not as the point of the whole movie.

This was actually posted by me. I forgot Pak was logged in and we're having to share a computer now. Bad Tyrant! 

[Cosmic Muse]

I don't know...I guess since I'm a heterosexual woman I can do without seeing naked women. Naked men however.....

What I have a really problem with are people who obsess over naked, animated characters. To me there's a sort of desperation in looking at animated figures in the buff instead of good old, living person nudity, but that's not what I wanted to talk about concerning Beowulf.

My issue with Beowulf is the fact the CGI tries a little too hard to make the human characters look real. Mind you it's not as grotesque as some efforts, but whenever you look at the eyes you can tell there's just something odd about them, that there's just no soul to these CGI characters which creaes a feeling of creepiness in your skin. Another issue stems from the Grendel design. Granted it's a very uncanny likeness of Crispin Glover, but as far as I recall that's not how Grendel is described in the epic poem. As I interpret it, he's alot hairier and Bigfoot looking than this CGI movie represents him. My last little quibble is the line delivery of the dialogue. You can see from the sample that the actor playing Beowulf delivers his lines with pauses in between each of his words. It's almost like the dull, old guy's performance from Cave Dwellers.

[Cibernético II]

I liked it alot. I think going all animation was a great choice. If it were live action it would have been sucky like Van Helsing or something

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Oceanborn Angel: Actually, the thing about the epic poem, the big thing, is it never really gives any adequate description of grendel. We know that he's bigger than a man, that he has hands or claws, and that he has arms. Beyond that, very little is given in the form of visual detail. Is he just a few feet taller than micheal jordon, or is he the size of a house? Are his hand six-fingered? Are they great scissor-like claws? Is his head that of a man or a beast? Does he have long skinny spider legs or godzilla feet or what?

He's described as Nasty, as foul, as evil, but beyond that there isn't a lot of exactly what he is or isn't. I consider this parcity of description the most frustrating aspect of the poem/epic/chant.

This film portrays grendel looking like crispin glover. I remember as a kid I saw some fantasy/mythic serial that portrayed him looking more like a thorn elemental, all covered with bristly bits and spines, with no visible eyes, and really tall and lanky. I dare you to come up with a quote from "Beowulf" contradicting the crispin glover portrayal, specifically listing him as "hary" or even as human-shaped beyond possessing teeth and arms and legs.

[Jason Martian]

Yes... the easy part of retelling the tale of Beowulf and Grendel is that it is an ancient tale that has been told so many times in so many ways that it is very open to interpretation.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I duno. I think it's open to interpretation because the gremplorked ancient english bard never told us what the monster looked like. >.<

[Tyrant]

  I don't think it was that important to the story what Grendel looked like. The whole point of the story is that Beowulf kicked its ass. The devil is in the details.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think it matters, cuz the story is about bad-ass monsters as much as it is about guys who kick their ass. I mean, at least tell us what kind of monster it is.

There's so little description on grendel's mother it drives me nuts, because the detail on the issue of her size relative to beowulf affected the flow of combat and makes it really hard to visualize. Also, why could they breathe and use fire and stuff if they were underwater?

Stupid ancient bards. >_<