BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

PodBill Just what I expected

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

mstomaso Shot in Iceland by Icelandic director Sturla Gunnarsson, Beowulf and Grendel pulls off just enough historicism to entertain while remaining readily accessible to modern mainstream audiences. What Gunnarsson's film lacks in linguistic authenticity (modern epithets and speech dominate Canadian Andrew Rai Berzins' screenplay) and commitment to the original legend, is readily made up for by the film's remarkable sets, fantastic (and sometimes jarring) costumes and prosthetic work, and the picture-perfect Icelandic landscape in which it was filmed. Gunnarsson keeps the pace about as steady as the original poem and its more recent popular reworking "Grendel" (by John Gardner), from which the screenplay draws about equally. In other words, Beowulf and Grendel, though action-oriented - should not be sold as a mainstream modern action film. Instead, it is a somewhat faithful retelling of a great story blending themes of prejudice, xenophobia, heroism, and cycles of violence.As a young troll, Grendel witnesses the death of his father at the hands of a Danish raiding party lead by King Hrothgar (Stellan Skarsgård), but his life is spared by the king, who is the only member of the party aware of the Grendel's existence. As an adult, Grendel (Ingvar E. Sigurdsson) exacts his revenge, massacring most of Hrothgar's men and harassing his village. Beowulf, ably played by Gerard Butler, is a stoic and thoughtful hero who brings a small army of Norse warriors to assist Hrothgar's people by slaying Grendel. The troll, however, isn't interested in fighting with those who have done no wrong to him and his kin. And as Beowulf tries to bring the inevitable confrontation to fruition, his understanding of his opponent changes subtly and importantly - exposing the film's central paradox.Whether you know the old story or not, Beowulf and Grendel will entertain you on more levels than the simple action of the story can convey. Many of the fantastic elements of the original story are downplayed or completely removed, and the sympathy between the primary adversaries is amplified - mainly through interactions between the key characters - Beowulf, Grendel and Selma, the young and beautiful outcast witch (Sarah Polley). Grendel is depicted as an extremely big man with a furrowed forehead, clearly emphasizing his kinship with us and affectively challenging the Danes' animosity toward him. Through Selma, Beowulf must come to understand his enemy before deciding what he must do. But the die has been cast, and the film elicits a powerful fatalism which also helps to keep the tensions of the central theme vital.With the exception of Sarah Polley - who gives an uncharacteristically uneven performance - the acting is superb. Sigurdsson and Butler were especially impressive, and Skarsgard never disappoints.Several of the film's critics appear to have been distracted by the historical inaccuracies - especially language and clothing. Remarkably, many of the critics who panned or nearly panned the film upon its release made comparisons to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. While the Holy Grail is a masterpieces of historical absurdism, let's be clear about the comparison. There is none. First, Beowulf and Grendel is not funny - at all. Second, it is a much more fantastic and allegoric fable than most of the Arthurian legends, and, unlike those legends, probably has no basis in fact. Instead, like most good fables, Beowulf and Grendel tells us something about the truth - not the facts - while keeping us engaged and entertained. Anachronism is forgivable in a timeless story.

J Vaughn This movie has many redeeming qualities but managed to have enough ludicrous diversions from the Anglo-Saxon poem to receive an indisputable "thumbs down". Let's start with the good aspects: the clothing was great, Heorot looked authentic; the actors were skillfully selected; Grendel's stature and acting was very convincing; Grendel's mother and the scenes with her were perfect; the horses (ponies) were historically correct; the boat (hring-stefna) and the scenes with the icebergs were amazing. Now let's peruse the plethora of negative aspects: Hrothgar was a drunken moron, unlike the Hrothgar presented in the poem; Grendel is a sympathetic hero who cuts his own arm off and tosses Beowulf around like a rag-doll; The Christian missionary is a weak moron-not that there were not weak Christian morons in the northern islands in the 10th and 11th centuries, but the portrayal of this character comes across as ironically "preachy"; God is a joke, which contradicts the entire poem's tone. The premise to this movie is an absurd speculative theory that the pagan oral story/poem "Beowulf" was "Christianized" by a tampering Christian author. This is, well, absurd. On the contrary many critics feel that the Christian elements in the poem are so thoroughly entwined in the poem's actors, dialogue and plot that the poem would fall apart without them. The need that progressive story and film writers feel to rewrite this epic poem is changing the way modern readers of this poem interpret this work. Please, Peter Jackson could you take two years of your life and produce a Beowulf movie that is free from 21st century literary criticism!

linadelmastro although notable for setting choice, that hardly made up for the shocking lack of talent or viable script material. Gerard Butler, although a proved actor (and hottie), could have done much better than to star in this terrible film because frankly anyone can grunt. Furthermore, I was so disgusted by the description of rabbit bestiality during the dinner sequence I didn't think it could be topped. I actually threw popcorn at the screen. That was until of course the troll/witch rape scene in which a young outcast woman is violated and appears to enjoy it. the lack of music was shocking. the lack of meaningful dialogue was shocking, and quite honestly the content was shocking as well. had the writer stuck to the original story of Beowulf the audience might have had even a faint storyline to follow and the movie a fighting chance.

freakfire-1 What this version of Beowulf lacks in big stars and cool CGI, it makes up for in story and realism. In short, this one actually tries to be historically plausible than the CGI incarnation. And I believe that gives this film a solid edge.Yes it does deviate from the epic Old English story, but it goes the opposite direction from the CGI Beowulf. Instead of Jolie's body in 3D glory, it has recreations of housing from the era with fighting that makes more sense. Grendel is portrayed as a wild man instead of a monster. His mother, a wild woman, protects her son. And Beowulf ends up respecting somebody he doesn't see as his foe.Overall, I would give this a good mark. Higher than the mainstream Hollywood version. "B"