First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
[Movie] Beowulf
6669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Faithfully in Mat...
Offline
Posted 11/26/07
hmm. shld i watch it at the cinemas tomorrow???
236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / California
Offline
Posted 11/26/07
I am so excited about No Country for Old Men...I read in the book last year and it was pretty good I guess but the fight scenes were awesome. With Beowulf...I don't know, I saw the play and well let's just say i'm still confused on what the storyline is
932 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Las Noches
Offline
Posted 11/26/07
i haven't seen it.. but it looks pretty good in the trailers. i kind of think it won't even compare to the 300.. now THAT movie ROCKED.
Posted 11/26/07
Go see the IMAX 3D version. Don't waste your time on the 2D version. At least then if you don't like it you'll be like "oh cool... 3D."
932 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Las Noches
Offline
Posted 11/26/07
^-- haha. ok, i'll do that. i think Mall of Asia has an imax theater.. better go check it out.
9607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / East Bay California
Offline
Posted 11/27/07

shibole wrote:


Morphman wrote:
Although I probably will love it for the special effects and references to mythology, I still cannot bypass the thought that this movie is only VERY LOOSELY based off the original myth.

And WHAT exactly IS the "original" myth? I ask you because you sound like an expert.

nipponboy: The oldest manuscript of Beowulf is written in OLD English. Old English is really old and is mostly unintelligible to modern English-speaking people.


Actually Old English has many ties to the German language (which much of our English is derived from) and I believe a version of Old English is actually still spoken today...if I remember correctly somewhere around Wales.

The original myth was basically... Oh by the way if you don't want to know the basic plot of the movie...***DON'T READ THIS SINCE IT'S KIND OF A SPOILER***



But in response to your question basically, there's this prosperous kingdom that is now being plagued by a demon/troll thing that is killing off all of the men. Hrothgar, who is king, sends word to all of his allies for aid...and Beowulf comes in order to repay a long standing debt. Beowulf is crazy strong ends up defeating the demon/troll thing (Grendal) and cuts off his arm. Grendal goes back to his swamp where his mother gets all upset and then comes seeking revenge. Beowulf then battles the mother...kills her, eventually becomes king. After many years, his kingdom is attacked by a fire wyrm, because Beowulf always triumphed in the past his pride leads him to believe that he will once again be victorious...well he isn't. So there, that's it in a nutshell.
1795 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / im under you're b...
Offline
Posted 11/27/07
beowulf was ok but he was fuggin naked half the movie disturbing nightmares ahoy
65625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/27/07

nipponboy911 wrote:


Tyrfing wrote:

Þā cōm of mōre under misthleoðum
Grendel gongan, godes yrre bær.

... It was a pain in the arse.

(That one I did work out though.)



LOL is that really english?! (even if its old haha) thats like a different language.


Hmm a liberal translation would be something like

He came over the moor, under the mist bank
Grendal came bearing the wrath of god (or with the wrath of god/ god's wrath)

... or something.

Þā can mean a few things, the, when, or then. (I looked it up because I remember that extract beginning with "He")
cōm is fairly obvious.
mōre is a moor, as in the geographic location.
misthleoðum or mist hleoðum, although its not too common I do hear people refer to a 'bank' of mist or cloud.
gongan I assume is some form of "to go". OE uses word endings rather than word order so one word can have many endings based on the purpose it serves in the sentence.
godes is either the plural, or possessive version of god.
yrre is ire, as in anger or wrath
bær bear, carry, hold (preterite indicative of bearen)

It helps if you sound it out.

There are some letters that don't exist in modern English.

The Thorn Þ or þ = Th. In printing þ was represented by a y. Hence þe becoming ye
Eth Ð or ð = Th as in "them" not "the". Not used to start a word.
Ash Æ or æ like in... Archaeology.
12704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Johnny and the JE...
Offline
Posted 11/27/07
Well, it's not going to be the movie of the year but watch it for naked Angelina Jolie and her weird tail. (what's it called again?) Beowulf naked half the time was disturbing, but the animation/CGI's were awesome. I mean, 10 times better than POLAR EXPRESS where I kept thinking that Tom Hanks face was creepy.

As for the storyline...I have no comment. I don't even know what the ORIGINAL version is, so i'm at no liberty to comment.
12885 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 11/27/07

starcrossed23 wrote:

...basically, there's this prosperous kingdom that is now being plagued by a demon/troll thing that is killing off all of the men. Hrothgar, who is king, sends word to all of his allies for aid...and Beowulf comes in order to repay a long standing debt. Beowulf is crazy strong ends up defeating the demon/troll thing (Grendal) and cuts off his arm. Grendal goes back to his swamp where his mother gets all upset and then comes seeking revenge. Beowulf then battles the mother...kills her, eventually becomes king. After many years, his kingdom is attacked by a fire wyrm, because Beowulf always triumphed in the past his pride leads him to believe that he will once again be victorious...well he isn't. So there, that's it in a nutshell.


Yeah but does kill the fire wyrm (ie dragon, probably wingless), its just he ends up dying as a result of the battle...So victorious...Kinda...

Note to below: Beowulf (the movie) got reviews that ranged from 2.5-3 out of 4 stars and 3.5-4 out of 5 stars, and those are reviews done by people paid to critique movies...It was a B-grade movie; not great, not terrible, and if you think that it was that bad, you evidently have not seen "bad" films...Frankly I have seen some TERRIBLE films - films that made Beowulf look like gold - and I know that I have not even come close to seeing the worst!
222 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / SunnySideUp Florida
Offline
Posted 11/27/07
I went to see it on Saturday with a few friends. We went to an 11:00pm showing and saw it in 3-D. But... in the end (actually the beginning) we all thought it was horrible. We thought there would be real actors, but they weren't. Also why did the main guy always have to fight naked?? It made no sense. We watched it for quite a while all of us hoping it would get better... But it never did. :< Finally we all just got up and left before it ended. Then we went to IHOP and got hit on by some drunk guys. :<

I didn't enjoy the film, but I've never read the book. Both of my friends I went with have read the book, but agreed that the movie sucked. @_@ It was the first time in my life I've ever walked out a movie. which means it was super horrible.
2573 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 11/27/07
HAHA!! grandel is ugly cos of his fathers retarded sperm while Beowulf sperms were POWERFUL!!! haha!! angelina jolie SIA!!
Posted 11/27/07

starcrossed23 wrote:


And WHAT exactly IS the "original" myth? I ask you because you sound like an expert.

The original myth was basically... Oh by the way if you don't want to know the basic plot of the movie...***DON'T READ THIS SINCE IT'S KIND OF A SPOILER***

Ok, well maybe I'm just being a smartass here, but you're sure that's what the story was like before the oldest known manuscript was written? I mean before that, as far as I know, it was an oral tradition. What was the story like in oral form 100 or 200 years before the manuscript was written? What did the story originally derive from? Were all the plot elements the same when the first storyteller sat around the fire with people telling the story?

Also, what did the manuscript writer change when writing it down? Maybe nothing? Maybe he rewrote the plot to make it more suitable to him, or more suitable for the style of "books"/writing at the time.

My points are that there basically is no known original story, and that stories undergo change when they are adapted from one artform/media to another. Therefore "the movie sucks (or whatever) because it doesn't follow 'the original' story" is like saying "the earliest written manuscript sucks because it probably doesn't follow the oral version(s) before that."
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/27/07

shibole wrote:


starcrossed23 wrote:


And WHAT exactly IS the "original" myth? I ask you because you sound like an expert.

The original myth was basically... Oh by the way if you don't want to know the basic plot of the movie...***DON'T READ THIS SINCE IT'S KIND OF A SPOILER***

Ok, well maybe I'm just being a smartass here, but you're sure that's what the story was like before the oldest known manuscript was written? I mean before that, as far as I know, it was an oral tradition. What was the story like in oral form 100 or 200 years before the manuscript was written? What did the story originally derive from? Were all the plot elements the same when the first storyteller sat around the fire with people telling the story?

Also, what did the manuscript writer change when writing it down? Maybe nothing? Maybe he rewrote the plot to make it more suitable to him, or more suitable for the style of "books"/writing at the time.

My points are that there basically is no known original story, and that stories undergo change when they are adapted from one artform/media to another. Therefore "the movie sucks (or whatever) because it doesn't follow 'the original' story" is like saying "the earliest written manuscript sucks because it probably doesn't follow the oral version(s) before that."


Well, I think the issue is that the movie sounds like it is masquerading as something it may not be (I haven't seen it yet). I don't know to what extent the movie has differed from the only surviving copy of the tale, but certain changes can be capable of altering the very nature of the story - and that is an issue.

**just read some scholarly reviews of the film and am thoroughly disappointed**

Beowulf is significant not just because it's a fun story about vikings killing monsters, but because it gives us insight to the nature and values of the people who told these stories. It's true that we don't know how the story evolved orally (which it undoubtedly did) and it's likely every bard worth his salt had his own version with drastically different aspects. But as we have come to know the tale today is based on the original manuscript, arguably the best window we have to northern european culture during this period of time.

Beowulf is a tale that tells us about comitatus (the warrior society of europe that existed before feudalism) and the value of the hero during this period in history. Apparently, the movie takes absurd leaps from this and makes some drastic role reversals and reads far far to much into the original story (i.e. the relationships between Hrothgar, Beowulf, and Grendel's Mother). This is a point were the very nature of the original tale has been compromised. This is an issue because this is masquerading as the original tale and will give many people a totally incorrect view of what it is.

Fortunately for modern audiences who lack the patience to read anything older than they are, Michael Crichton adapted Beowulf for modern audiences in the form of his book "Eaters of the Dead" which was in turn made into the film "The 13th Warrior." What Crichton did that was so remarkable was he rewrote the original tale in such a fashion that modern audiences can actually appreciate the themes of the original story while presenting it on terms they can accept. In order to do this, he removed the supernatural elements and told the story through an arabic observer. Why arabic? Our values and world view today are more akin to those of the middle east than they are of ancient europe. We can relate to this arab better than we can the vikings. It's not Beowulf, and thus it isn't labeled as Beowulf, but it still captured the essence of the original tale than it seems this new version does not.

Beowulf is very politically incorrect story. I'm appalled (though not surprised) to see Hollywood give it the politically correct revisionism they seem to love to do anything else they encounter. And I'm very very disappointed in Niel Gaimen. The man knows better, and that makes the matter even worse.

I'm "acquiring" the film at the moment, I may add a more detailed rebuttal (or reversal if necessary) after viewing it myself.
7031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Home.....Sweet......
Offline
Posted 11/27/07
i haven't red da book but the movie luks gud, but i'm gonna watch the golden compass instead
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.