Holy hell this movie was bad. It had its moments, but they were few and far between and the ... foibles, the... missteps were so egregious and common that they became the standard element of the film.
At times the animation was quite breathtaking, cool panning shots and close ups on faces especially. But the makers insisted on trying to add depth to the story by having these Computer Animated characters act. Sorry, unless you have the team that put together Golem working on every character in the movie, it just ain't going to happen. They over reached.
It started making me wonder whether there is some predictable curve you could plot that if a movie has over a certain budget, the suckier it becomes. Pirates 3 had a huge budget, and it absolutely sucked rocks.
The best thing about these huge budget fantasy/sci fi movies is their trailers. Maybe that's the new theory in Hollywood, if it makes a good trailer and has enough stars in it it will make money, so all's well.
I had more to say about how hyperbole is fine, especially in movies depicting the big, old myths -- but that the hyperbolic "detail" in this one was just over the top. He fights his enemy naked for instance -- who gives a shit (other than Tate, who would probably appreciate that scene, despite many carefully-placed scrotal covers).
Men yelling about what they're going to do seems a big theme too, in this movie and in 300. Another movie, come to think of it, that looks best in the trailers, that takes an overblown myth that could have made a decent movie and makes it suck by including ideological undertones that makes one want to puke.
A hint to the movie makers, when using one of the old stories -- one that includes father/son conflict, and seduction by power, and selling your soul to the devil -- don't try to modernize it. Don't try to "make it relevant today." By its nature it's already relevant, it appeals to deep psychology, just leave it the eff alone and it will work fine.
Neil Gaiman was one of the writers on this project, and that gave me hope it would be cleanly put together and relevant, but it didn't save the movie unfortunately. I'll bet because of the enormous money surrounding the movie, he was just hog-tied as an artist. "It's got to go by the book, or we won't make our money back."
This post was supposed to be short, whups.
Here's the r-rated trailer for Beowulf, it at least touches on the best moments of the movie and might be a better use of your time than watching the movie itself, even in 3D.
By the way, the dragon near the end is quite great. Again, not great enough to save the movie, but it is dandy for sure.
Enjoy avoiding enormous wastes of your time,
Bp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i have not seen this one yet. would like to though... especially now that you said there was naked fight scenes LOL
You will get a kick out of it in 3D I bet. It's eye candy for sure.
Hell, there are long panning shots of our nude hero lounging on stone steps like a supermodel, you'll LOVE it.
Of anyone I know, you have the suspension of disbelief necessary to truly enjoy this movie, so don't take my trashing of it to apply to you. Get the 3D glasses and see it at Lloyd center for the full effect.
Unless it comes out in 3D at Omsi.
It won't be nearly as good on the small screen.
the suspension of disbelief??? hmm that is funny, i have no idea what it means though, i hope it is good and not a nice way of saying "you are a fucking loon and would understand this" hehe
Oh it's nothing like that, it's a theater term. Means willing to go where the play/movie is taking you, instead of sitting back and criticizing as it goes.
Means you want to have fun with it, basically.
I can't help but starting to critique the movie as it's playing, and with most movies it just ruins it LOL.
Definitely not a dis, sir.
It's funny, now that I've written a bad review, I found myself on the phone telling Doc Ock that he'd enjoy the movie too.
Doc Ock is known for his ability to thoroughly enjoy high budget but vacuous movies. He's proud of this ability, and it is a quality of life enhancer when you have an 8-year-old who wants to go watch Dragon Wars and Rush Hour III.
Being the elitist troglodyte that I am, I do not favor making movies from legends. To explain: when I was a teenager, I read "The Lord of the Rings" apporimately 43 gazillion times (I lost count after 39 gazillion. While LOTR is not true legend, it is close enough to make my point.)
Having read the books, the films were somehow wrong to me; I had created my own very specific imagery, and the films were sufficiently different from that not to work for me.
There is a lot to be said for reading these mythic stories. The language is often magnificent (you pick: Homer's 'Iliad' or the movie 'Troy' with Brad Pitt -- Tate, your POV on that one is prolly tainted, LOL) reading is active, whereas film watching is passive; the act of imagination required to complete a story which is being read is wonderfully creative.
Finally, movies are stuck with the bigger-is-better synrome: more noise, more special effects, more muscles, gore, scantily clad women, ... . Reading, even reading of 'big' material, is subtle.
Bah...
WOW lots of feelings about this stuff.
I can completely enjoy big budget and very low budget movies without any thought of criticizing it.
But that said, I am a crazy reader, I usually have at least 3 books going at once. My favorite type of reading is Fantasy so maybe that is easier with that kind.
I create complete imagery when reading, i have just learned to set that aside when i watch something turned into a movie, i consider it something new and i want to be entertained.
Ah, Tate,
You are just too bloody open minded. (laughs)
dunno. . .the movies you guys describe remind me that we all live in the world of our choosing - when I choose a movie, it is not a shoot-em-up, gory vehicle with scantily clad women for boy-eye-candy - there ARE other folk making films that inspire and evoke the imagination and heart. Julian Schnabel's new film will make my point I'm sure, as do the movies of Paul Thomas Anderson, or Terence Malick, or many more. . .
this is not to discount the big spectacle fantasies most people thoroughly enjoy, just to remember that as one would choose an author for their imagination and literacy, the same attention can be paid to directors.
Truth be told, I am not much of a muvie goer. I like to have new experiences, and I find most movies are simply too predictable. I find that I figure out what the point is with most movies (not the plot, but the position, if you know what I mean) in the first few minutes, and get bored.
This is not to say that I don't occasionally go for mindless entertainment, just that I do so knowingly. And when I do, it tends to be ridiculously juvenile comedy (a la Caddyshack or Fast Times at Ridgemont High).
Big budget special effects extravaganzas just don't do it for me.
What happens to me Babs is that I get strung out emotionally by my life, and so I don't want to invest the emotional energy those movies require of me. When I get some time, and recharge my batteries, then they look good to me again.
Magnolia, for instance, was brilliant, just brilliant. But it's nothing I could watch to "come down" from finals, I'd probably have a nervous breakdown LOL.
Post a Comment