Monday, October 26, 2009

Beowulf (2007)

Suuure, we can sit here and debate whether or not this qualifies as Horror 'til we're blue in the face, but we accidentally forgot to change the Netflix que so live with it. Here's the thing: the CG in this film is downright impressive. I don't like all of the monster designs (all in this case being 'any of'), but never the less the work that went into the film is commendable. That being said, why was so much time and effort wasted on a film like this? Was there a reason for doing this particular film in CG over any other? I mean, it was cool, but there was never a point where I was like "Ahh, now I see why this wasn't live action.. It all makes sense now.." The majority of the scenes could have been achieved practically, and even the more action-oriented scenes could have integrated live action and computer imaging.

I don't know anything about the original epic outside of the shortened version we read in high school English, so I can't make any comparisons there. Story is ok, characters are ok, and it is decently entertaining, but I found myself tempted to hit the fast-forward button more than a few times before the end. It does deliver several bloody battles with various beasts that are surprisingly gory, there just isn't any moment in the film where I was blown away and fully engaged in any of the events on screen. Worth checking out to see how far computer animation has come, but the film will be obsolete within the next few years.

Rating: 8/10.
Entertainment: 7/10.
Gore: 6/10.
Number of views: 1.



HorrorBlips: vote it up!

2 comments:

  1. Reasons that this movie was done in CGI:
    1. So that Ray Winstone did not have to go on a diet.
    2. Crispin Glover is too terrifying without a CGI avatar.
    3. Angelina's tail is not long enough in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. lol good call on that one, I swear there were moments when I mistook Angelina's character for Makully Culkin

    ReplyDelete