2007 / 112 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

Sometimes it’s hard to divorce the content of a movie from the experience of actually seeing it, but I shall try nonetheless. I must say, without hyperbole, that seeing “Beowulf” on an IMAX screen and in 3-D was flat-out one of the best cinematic experiences of my entire life. Considering how many movies I’ve actually seen, I think you can understand what bold praise that is. The 3-D presentation of this movie is nothing short of awesome and, if you have any inkling toward seeing this movie, you simply owe it to yourself to see it in 3-D and on the biggest possible screen. That being said, the question remains: is “Beowulf” a good movie?

My short answer is: Oh My, Yes!!! “Beowulf” is a rousing good time, a film that supplies genuine spectacle and, unlike hollow amusements like this year’s “300″ and “Transformers”, could serve as the dictionary definition of the word “Spectacular”.

For those of you who have never bothered to read the epic poem on which it is based (and, incidentally, you really should; like “The Odyssey” it’s one of those ancient classics that doesn’t feel like homework) “Beowulf” is the story of a Danish king who finds his legendary mead hall cursed by a really nasty monster named Grendel (played by Crispin Glover, of all people, though you’d never know it by just watching the movie). Grendel is actually pained by any kind of human joy…sort of like The Grinch, only in a much better movie. So whenever King Hrothgar (played by Anthony Hopkins) throws a bash, Grendel comes down and crashes the party. He’s like a fuddy-duddy landlord who eats people. Hrothgar closes down his party pad and puts out the word that he needs a hero. Before you can say “Bonnie Tyler”, in struts Beowulf (played by Ray Winstone): leader of the Geats and ass-kicking glory hound. Beowulf doesn’t come for money. He comes for fame: to make his good name even better. He’s a proud, rather arrogant braggart who will kill anything he has to in order to prove how awesome he is. He throws a party in the mead hall and waits for Grendel to crash it. When the monster does, Beowulf fights him…naked.

Beowulf easily defeats Grendel, but his problems are far from over. You see, Grendel has a mother, and she’s none too happy that her son gets his arm ripped off and hung over the entrance to a glorified beer tent. Complications ensue.

Technically, “Beowulf” is amazing. It’s a feast for the eyes, so filled with detail and eye candy that one scarcely knows where to look. The motion capture technology on display here has only been put to better use by Peter Jackson (in “Kong” and in the case of Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” films) but director Robert Zemeckis takes the filmmaking style he revolutionized in his earlier “Polar Express” and refines it. The characters still look a little like creepy, humanoid dolls imbued with sinister life, but less so than in “Polar” and at least every character isn’t played by Tom Hanks. The creatures are spectacularly visualized and, with actors like Crispin Glover and Angelina Jolie supplying their movements and vocals, they seem endowed with a genuine spirit. We actually feel sorry for Glover’s Grendel at the same time that we are repulsed and horrified by him. Jolie’s reimagined mother of Grendel oozes sexuality and danger in equal measure, as well as pathos at the death of her icky offspring. The actors provide the voices, movements and heart of their characters, making the film a lot deeper and meatier than the average “spectacular” Hollywood fare. The fact that we are moved and fascinated by these characters pushes the film to a higher plateau than that operated on by “300″, for example. When Beowulf bellows “I AM BEOWULF” it is every bit as fun as when Gerard Butler bellows that “THIS IS SPARTA” but it has a lot more to do with his character and it carries a bit more weight. Whereas all the best moments of “300″ were evident in its admittedly kickass trailer, there is a wealth of wonderful moments and thrilling events in the running time of “Beowulf”. “Beowulf” is more than a series of quotable sound bites and a montage of greatest kills (which is what, I feel, “300″ boils down to).

You see, “Beowulf” has an actual story to it. In fact, the script by Neil Gaiman and “Pulp Fiction” co-scribe Roger Avary actually embellishes the original poem and gives it a bit more resonance. The poem was definitely exciting, with its thrilling battles, complex heroes, notions of nobility and heroism, and imaginative creatures. But Gaiman and Avary preserve all that while heaping on new twists and angles that do not diminish the source material. It’s a trick that the makers of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” and “Cat in the Hat”, for example, would do well to learn. When Beowulf fights a dragon at the end of the movie, it has more narrative heft and emotional weight (not to mention genuine ickiness) than when he did so in the original poem. I hesitate to say that the film “Beowulf” improves on the oldest tale in the English language but, well, it kind of does. At the very least, I must admit that these new additions make for one hell of a movie.

Is the film flawless? Not quite. It ends on a strange, ambiguous note and the motion capture process isn’t as lifelike as its practitioners seem to think it is (as I said, the characters still have the same weird, dead-eyed, Barbie doll look to them that made “The Polar Express” somewhat creepy and distracting) but such things hardly matter when a movie is so relentlessly entertaining, has such unexpected emotional heft and zest, and possesses such creepy and cynical insights into the nature of heroism itself.

Though I have mentioned, in various comments on this site, that I liked Robert Zemeckis a lot better before he used his career simply to advance the technical side of filmmaking, I think what he has done here is legitimately ingenious. He’s used what is arguably the oldest tale known to man in order to advance the art of storytelling. He’s taken the past of the storytelling art and used it as a foundation to push the boundaries of storytelling’s future. Even if “Beowulf” hadn’t worked at all, I would have given him major points just for trying. “Beowulf” would have been a ballsy failure. Instead it is a genuinely rousing and marvelous success. Zemeckis and his team of craftsmen use the oldest tool of entertainment, story, and then embellishment with a bunch of crazy gimmicks that shouldn’t work such as 3-D, motion capture and just plain hugeness to shape the future of entertainment and provide a more immersive and stunning theatrical experience than damn near anything else I have ever seen. Like his contemporary, James Cameron, Zemeckis likes to continually give the audience something new and find new tools that allow him to tell stories in a new way.

The only difference is that while Cameron is still talking about revolutionizing the very world of cinema, Robert Zemeckis has actually gone and done it.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.