Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saxman on November 20, 2007, 05:55:57 PM
-
Saw this movie Sunday, and I have to say unless you're seeing it in 3D, wait for it on DVD. It wasn't that it's a BAD movie, it was ok, it's just not worth the price.
There's something seriously frelled about a movie based on the oldest known written literature in the English language, when the guy who MADE the thing says there's nothing in the original poem that interested him in the FIRST place.
Honestly, I think it shows.
-
Thanks for the review. Think I'll just keep watching "The 13th Warrior".
-
I thought it was pretty good but Sax is right, unless you're going to watch it in 3D, don't bother.
Though, I hope people don't think this movie is in anyway accurate to the original sagas, which it isn't. It's more picking and choosing from the different sagas and placing them here and there in the movie without any continuity of the original story.
The one thing that I really didn't like, though it did provide some chuckles was naked Beowulf in 3D. However, seeing Angelina in 3D was nice, it was like she was sitting on my lap .
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Thanks for the review. Think I'll just keep watching "The 13th Warrior".
The book was so much better than the movie. Chriton did a great job with "The Eaters of the Dead" the movie was... eh in comparison.
Speaking of Chriton.... i think that this thread is the first time i have seen "frell" used in normal conversation....
-
Yeah, I've read the book too. You know Crichton took over the film and reshot some scenes as director and producer? I still like them both though.
-
I have to agree with Diablo. Both are pretty enjoyable, neither really better than the other.
-
Ack-Ack,
The original Beowulf poem consisted of the same three "adventures" that the film portrayed: Grendel, his Mother, and the Dragon. However the major difference, and it's been a LONG time since I've read any of the original poem, (I MUST pick it up sometime. I've been waiting for Tolkien's translation, but until the son kicks it and someone else takes over the family company it may never be published) is that the poem relies VERY heavily on some of the background legends/history of the Danes and Germanic peoples to establish its setting and world (specifically mention of some of the historical or semi-legendary kings, places and events of the 5th/6th centuries).
Really you can sort of look at it like, Beowulf is to Danish and Germanic legend what The Lord of the Rings is to the Silmarillion: One large tale set against the backdrop of a deeper mythology (that Tolkien was enamored by the poem, and one of the first to argue for Beowulf's LITERARY, rather than historical, merits has to play into this somehow). This IS sort of a drawback since contemporary audiences wouldn't understand the references like someone versed in that culture would (like, say, a mead hall in Saxon England) but I think Jackson's LotR illustrated that you CAN make these allusions without sacrificing accessibility.
This was a major failing of the film, because a LOT of that mythology was disregarded for cartoonish Hollywood spectacle, and much of the richness of the original legend was lost, which is really a shame. They had the opportunity to show so much of how deep and textured native Western European mythology was before Christianity displaced it, and gave it all up for cheap thrills and bawdy humor.
IMO, the best and most enjoyable part of the movie was the battle against Grendel, which if I'm remembering the poem correctly is the one part that's truly faithful to the epic (that should be a lesson, there. If it's not broke don't "fix" it). I also loved that Grendel's dialog was entirely in Old English. It's so far removed from Modern English as to be another language altogether, but at the same time is JUST familiar enough that you can almost understand some of what he says. There's something that's just hauntingly beautiful about hearing it spoken, and I wish they'd have used more of it.
-
See Rule #5
-
lawlz
Arlo, how the **** are ya?
-
Hmmmm. Didn't used to be a complex question.
I'll say "just ducky."
Whatcha up to, bro? :D
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Saw this movie Sunday, and I have to say unless you're seeing it in 3D, wait for it on DVD. It wasn't that it's a BAD movie, it was ok, it's just not worth the price.
There's something seriously frelled about a movie based on the oldest known written literature in the English language, when the guy who MADE the thing says there's nothing in the original poem that interested him in the FIRST place.
Honestly, I think it shows.
I'm curious what method did they use for the 3d (shutter glasses/anaglyph/etc)?
-
Sig,
Go hijack someone else's thread. That crap doesn't belong here.
Vulcan,
It's whatever technique RealD uses. I can't tell you more than that.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Thanks for the review. Think I'll just keep watching "The 13th Warrior".
They ruined the 13 Warrior too
-
(http://www.gunblast.com/images/50Beowulf/Mvc-002f.jpg)
I do service calls there a lot--cool place, lotta history
-
Originally posted by bj229r
They ruined the 13 Warrior too
You mean the author of the book ruined the movie?
-
Just remember Crichton is the one we can thank for Jurassic Park III. :p
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Vulcan,
It's whatever technique RealD uses. I can't tell you more than that.
Found it cheers:
The Real D 3-D system was invented by Lenny Lipton, an American inventor. It is based on the push-pull electro-optical modulator called the ZScreen.
The technique that Real D uses is similar to the traditional method of 3-D imaging using polarized glasses. The traditional method works by projecting two differently polarized images onto the same screen, which are then filtered by polarized glasses worn by the audience. This type of 3-D imaging requires two projectors. Real-D however uses a single projector that alternately projects the left-eye frame and right-eye frame, and appropriately polarizes these frames using a liquid-crystal screen placed in front of the projector lens. The polarized glasses make sure each eye sees only "its own" picture. The very high framerate, which is 72fps per eye, makes sure the image looks continuous. In Real D Cinema, each frame is projected three times to reduce flicker, as the source video is usually 24fps. The result is a 3-D picture that seems to extend behind and in front of the screen itself.
...in case anyone was interested.
I've got some HD 3D movies already, they look very cool. Did you find any wierdness with the scale of the 3D? When I play 3D movies on my headset it feels like I'm looking at tiny people on a stage - the headset screen equivilant is 60" @ 3 feet. I'm assuming the big screen gets rid of this 'effect'.
-
I noticed that the 3D was most effective on stationary, or nearly so, objects. When things were moving on the screen you could sort of see the two separate images they use to create the effect, so moving objects tended to look somewhat out of focus.
While not related to the 3D effects, I have to say I'm not really a fan of this sort of performance-capture technique. Basically it's just rotoscoping using computers, and people end up looking very flat and artificial (and in some ways a little bit creepy).
-
How is the other Beowulf movie (Beowulf and Grendel)?
-
Originally posted by Saxman
There's something seriously frelled about a movie based on the oldest known written literature in the English language, when the guy who MADE the thing says there's nothing in the original poem that interested him in the FIRST place.
The author and myself would agree on that.
Had that boring crap in HS until I thought I was going to OD on the stuff.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Found it cheers:
...in case anyone was interested.
I've got some HD 3D movies already, they look very cool. Did you find any wierdness with the scale of the 3D? When I play 3D movies on my headset it feels like I'm looking at tiny people on a stage - the headset screen equivilant is 60" @ 3 feet. I'm assuming the big screen gets rid of this 'effect'.
What if you are blind in 1 eye?
Will you check this for me?
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
What if you are blind in 1 eye?
Will you check this for me?
you should get a 50% discount
-
The author and myself would agree on that.
Had that boring crap in HS until I thought I was going to OD on the stuff.
IMO, if this is the attitude schools are creating then they're not using the material right. Yes, Beowulf is important for understanding the origin of the English language and literature, but by focusing solely on that teachers are making it a subject to be dreaded.
That's a shame, too, because it's not MEANT to be read that way. Beowulf isn't academic, it's a work of literary art and should be APPROACHED that way. It's a celebration of the courage, valor, and the greatness of Man, which is quite ironic considering it originated at a time when Christianity was doing its best to suppress such notions as the nobility of the human spirit apart from God. It's a very poignant lamentation for a word that was already no more than a memory.
Any teacher who does otherwise is doing a disservice to a treasure of English literature.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
You mean the author of the book ruined the movie?
? I Read that book 3-4 years before the movie came out
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
What if you are blind in 1 eye?
Will you check this for me?
Sorry dude, you need two eyes for stereoscopic 3D.
-
See Rule #2