Visitors Review

cpage-5 (2012-05-25 13:04)

Bummer

For such a great classic tale, the setting (location), Grendel wasdisappointing. As a writer, I blame the script which completely lackeddramatic tension. The rubric of the club story is useful and would haveprovided a new take on the literary classic. For some weird reason thatrubric was dropped early on. To know this was shot in 21 days says tome, "rushed" and it unfortunately shows. Now we'll have to wait for theHollywood version on the big screen. I word on FX, I can toleratereally crappy CGI but the script has to rock and this one was just tooslow, spartan and lacking in drama. I'd blame it on the actors but...since I know writing more than acting, I'll pick on my colleague.

irvine-stuart (2012-05-25 08:07)

Truly Awful.

I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget,now my take on things.The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented inthe worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it wasjust one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with veryinteraction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it wasdone in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget youshould use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at leastthey interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the castwere either not trying or they forgot where they where.The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking asif it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespearespeech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you needto find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from thesame person.I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the oldtestament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of thefilms talking about the gods and portents.In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn nonethe less.

klchu (2012-05-22 19:08)

Laughable

This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). Itwas like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expectedBeowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV showand he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept itconsistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They keptslipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English,sometimes in the same sentence.There are already many comments on how this movie is different from thesource material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is notgood. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse.Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story,dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, theyspent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.Life is too short to watch this movie.

lemn-peal (2012-05-22 01:16)

A crossbow? What?

I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot,automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not havetelescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat.The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues allSci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a fewminutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucyreruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you mightas well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it rightthere.A travesty.

Daniel - (2012-05-18 16:29)

Good, but NOT bad!

As for expectations for TV, there often basis made for non big-budgets,so I don't really get your complaints. For a TV-show that it is, youshould NOT have huge expectations (like the others comments) at all. Ithave its drawbacks as in former commentary, the fights between man vs.rendered monster, looked somewhat ridiculous, but still I liked themovie. I'll give this one, who gave me a entertaining hour and a half,5 out of 10. It was NOT a great movie, but a good TV-production. So ifyou are looking for LOTR-production, this is fare away from evenlooking the same. In the end, Its worth watching, like the most of thethings shown at sci-fi channel.

Paul Haakonsen (2012-05-18 02:27)

A good enough attempt at a classic tale...

This movie was, well, sort of interesting.First of all, I am from Denmark, and I am fairly sure that Denmark backin the day didn't look anything remotely like what was portrayed inthat movie. There are no ruins here now in these days that looksanything like the mead hall shown in this movie. It mostly looked likesomething from Greece with a hint of Roman inspiration.But nevertheless, the plot in the movie was fairly straight forward,and easy to follow. No major twists or surprises in the movie.The fight scenes in "Grendel" were painfully awkward to look at. Peoplewere slow, nowhere near dexterous, and it was so obvious they werefighting nothing, as to make room to put in the CGI created Grendel andthe Hag.Speaking of the CGI animations. I actually think that both Grendel andhis mom, the Hag, were adequately enough made. They looked alright andmoved alright. Though at points they looked fake. Especially in thescenes where Grendel rips out the guts of people. That looked likesomething made on a Commodore 64. It was horrible to look at.As for the cast, well most people were cast well enough. Ben Cross wasreally the one carrying the movie, in his role as king Rothgar. Thereis just something charismatic about him. Whenever I saw Beowulf (playedby Chris Bruno), I kept seeing Jason Statham instead, there were somesimilarities between them. And hand on heart, it would have been coolerto see Statham there instead.Now, for the props and items used in the movie. Well, I found the armorand weaponry to be alright. Maybe a bit inaccurate for history, butthis is a movie after all, so it didn't really matter. But what was upwith that super crossbow with the scope? Come on, I have never seenanyone be able to shoot that badly and miss 90% of the time while usinga scope for sighting. That was just ridiculous.In overall, this movie is not really too bad, just take it for anaction-adventure movie, don't read too much into the wholeGrendel/Beowulf tale. The movie provides fair enough entertainment fromstart till end, although you know the outcome of the movie right fromthe very start. It is actually a quite alright attempt to make a moviebased on that particular Grendel/Beowulf tale.

Abnegatus (2012-05-18 12:41)

Wrong....in so many ways.

SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movieslately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to bebased of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (andoffers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on televisionmight as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. Iwasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywoodproduction, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to notinterfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed tomake a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing(did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell fromthe massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mulletboy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the verylook of Grendel…if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he nothave been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segmentwas also lacking in every way – in my opinion the one in the epic wasactually better than the made up junk on the script; for example:Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket byBeowulf – not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by anexploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! AndGrendel's mother…did they just combine her with the dragon at the endof the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds?And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? If you want to see this movie because its connection to theepic….don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names).The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movieDruids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) – although I don't recommendwatching either.

fearfulofspiders (2012-05-18 06:27)

Very Bad, But Had Potential...

First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash theSci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a goodfilm, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be alot better. The flaws of the film come from character design,character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, themusic, and for the most part: the acting.When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way ourheroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem likeridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- thathelmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks likethe Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end,however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality,due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion aswell, as he becomes less conceited.Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make itits own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow thatis gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn'twalk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as theunderlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as theconsequences of lying.The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag arepoorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less thanbelievable.The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actuallyone of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash,making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is thedialogue, which is still wooden here and there.I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' takeon the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) isonly half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie athree-star review.

quickdiversion (2012-05-09 00:12)

Hail, Fernandez!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!! This movie rocked me so hard my perfect, pearly whiteteeth nearly shattered from the force of it! Monsters, vikings,explosions, heroes, romance, intrigue! Grendel has it all, with plentyto spare. I've rad some of the other comments here about the terribleacting and all I can say is WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? Ifyou don't think Chris Bruno is Oscar-worthy in this roll, you seriouslyneed to get your head out of the sand. I mean, seriously.And don't get me started on Marina Sirtis. When I heard she was inthis, I thought I might not recognize her without her trademarkcleavage, and boy was I right! If there ever was an actor or actressthat managed to break free of Star Trek's grasp, it is surely her. Icouldn't tear my eyes away from the screen every second she was on.TEARING IT UP, MARINA! Director Nick Lyon definitely deserves somerecognition for his amazing visual choices in this film. Given theSci-Fi channel budget, the effects were literally jaw-dropping. Iseriously had to cringe and look away when Grendel would rip people'sinsides out. And I'm no stranger to gory movies. It was just thatscary-looking.Screenwriter Ron Fernandez is probably the key to what made this filmso great. For those of you who've never seen his work "L.A.mentations,"you need to. It's brilliant, indeed, but not so brilliant as Grendel.I'm still geeking out about what I've dubbed the "crossbazooka!" Thatthing was amazing! And such a simple, believable way to conceive aweapon of modern power using ancient technology. Of course Beowulfwould fight Grendel with a missile launcher! Why wouldn't he! If onlyhe had known such things existed, surely the medieval Christian monkwho transcribed and adapted the ancient Beowulf epic for Christianaudiences would have written it in himself.If Ron Fernandez were here right now, I would force him into my car,take him to my house, chain him to my radiator, and make him regale mewith such tales as this for the rest of my life. Unbelievable.Hail, Fernandez! (and Mr. Fernandez, if you're reading this, I'm justkidding. I would never kidnap a grown man.)

YGoodwriter (2012-05-08 08:51)

Feed this movie to Grendel

Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale?This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed within a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf &Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That onewas only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!! What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in forno particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), orthe bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspiredacting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis lookso horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow? And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strengththroughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters hefought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when heslugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much tooreliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly notthe powerful Beowulf of the epic poem! I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of oneoffhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll beinfinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for anadaptation!

AnimeKingGT12 (2012-05-07 21:46)

Heresy I say!!

This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot istwisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literatureenthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculouscannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In thepoem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can'tbelieve that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel isportrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the onlypositive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane ifshe saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epicpoem "Beowulf," avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn'trecommend it.

BronwynN (2012-05-07 13:52)

Not a bad version -- But not good, either.

I first became acquainted with the story of Beowulf when, in highschool, I was forced to read the first twenty lines of it in theoriginal Anglo-Saxon (with a glossary, of course). It's an old storyabout a champion who comes to the aid of the Kingdom of the Danes whichhas been beset by a monster by the name of (Surprise!) Grendl. Ifyou've read the story already, you know how it comes out. If not, trythis film.This is a fairly accurate retelling of Beowulf, which is the reason Igave it a "5." However, certain of the characterizations are notterrific, and production values aren't very valued. Chris Bruno, in thelead role, works hard to bring dimension to a role which, at the verybest, is one-dimensional. Beowulf, after all, is a Hero, and heroesdon't have to be well-rounded -- just strong and brave. Ben Crossdoesn't seem to have his real voice, and Marina Syrtis, of Star TrekNext Generation fame, looks haggard and old. The supporting players, Ithink, were chosen more for their willingness to work for scale ratherthan for their talent.The CGI monsters, unfortunately, are poorly executed and not veryscary. If it wasn't for the fact that the original story has a strongplot, the writing, which tries very hard to be good, winds up beinglong-winded and silly. The production design and costuming is aboutwhat one might expect from a low-budget film -- Suffice it to say thatBeowulf's troop all wear horned helmets -- something that one usuallyonly sees in grandiose productions of Wagner.All in all, the movie is about what one would expect to see on a boringSaturday night. And you need to be very bored to enjoy it.

mattord-1 (2012-04-30 02:46)

Saints preserve us!

May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need afaithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has somethingin common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modernwestern literature.The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things.First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are allthese filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it(Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong ideaabout the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literaryconversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, theRoman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting./hjm

takseng (2012-04-29 14:07)

Beowulf has gained nothing from Sci-fi Channel's attentions

Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel thatlooks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of theweapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim'schest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit inon a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? Theancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queenplayed by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than bymadness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There aresome stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, butthis Grendel isn't one of them. What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes withoutmotivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savagedmore than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect forthe danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the landof the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like anold cowboy western than any kind of myth.Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literarytradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. Isuspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligentattempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent"Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and seesHrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognizeGrendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect itsrevisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugswho never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had broughtthis nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story ofBeowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story.I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, butthis "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied toprevious human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shameexperienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or asmodern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but alwayshopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up totelling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-makingseems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots ofprobes that fail than a few that succeed.

Rydragon13 (2012-04-27 20:18)

A fair movie

While I haven't fully read Beowulf yet, I will be within the comingmonths, and I felt that this movie would give me a taste of the story.If you're looking for comments related to how the movie stacks up andcompares to the actual story, you may wish to just wait for somebodyelse's comment.All in all, I thought this was an adequate movie. It combined decentamounts of action, character building, and fantasy. The movie had itsboring parts, like almost any other movie (Except Crank, I suppose...),as well as its high points.**SPOILER** One of these high points, as I would call it, is the final battle withGrendel. Not so much the slaying of the beast, but the anticipationleading up to the fight... You know it's coming, and you knowsomeone/something is going to get killed... Probably Grendel... But youstill have the anticipation growing as you eagerly await what happensnext. I suppose that may be different if you're familiar with the storyalready, but for me it was one of the more attention-grabbing scenes inthe movie.It started off on a pretty good note as well. Too many movies thesedays are starting off very plain, and very boring; often with heavymusic and flashy scenes to catch your eye. Personally, I prefer a movieto delve right into the story and action. Grendel does just this, asBeowulf enters a cave and slays a beast almost effortlessly. Thisserves two purposes, really... It gets the viewer interested in whatelse is to come, and it shows that Beowulf is no push-over when itcomes to slaying creatures.Though, much like I said before, this movie does get boring at points,and most of the key characters become very predictable as the moviegoes on. From the moment you see Finn you know he's going to gethimself in trouble as the story progresses. You know Ingrid is going tobe a total ditz that gets herself into trouble as well... And you mostcertainly can decipher that Unferth is going to be a prick, as well asa fool.**END SPOILER** All in all, if you're looking for a decent movie to pass the time, andpossibly watch just for a rather unique movie, you probably won't bedisappointed with Grendel. That said, Grendel is unique in its ownright, since it gets away from the run-of-the-mill fantasy medievalgenre...However, if you're looking for a highly original, completelyenthralling fantasy medieval movie, you might want to look elsewhere;as Grendel still has many of the components of a rather blotched,horribly general adventure. You know, the easily-distinguishable CGIfor the monsters, ridiculous battle scenes, and the times where youfind yourself mentally yelling at the characters one minute, andlaughing at their actions the next... All because of how poorly some ofthe fighting goes. We've all seen it, but we all still watch it.Now, as far as why I gave it a 6... Personally, I feel the ratingsystem on IMDb is screwed. Not because it's unfair, but because thereare so many different opinions on movies, that you really have to knowwhich opinions to follow if you're going to find the rating systemuseful. Without getting too far off-topic, what I mean by this is thefact that some movies you may enjoy, such as Conan the Barbarian, orThe Boondock Saints, get rather low ratings, while other movies likeThe Godfather rank so high. Or better yet, how The Matrix beatsEquilibrium...But that aside, If I were to rate this movie with a totally open mind,based on what some other movies on here have gotten, I would give it a6. It's better than your usual Sci-Fi Channel garbage, but not as goodas some fantasy medieval classics, like Conan the Barbarian. Certainlydon't expect something like The 13th Warrior here. Expect a very basic,but entertaining-at-points movie that's great to watch by yourself withsome popcorn on a lonely Saturday night. Of course, if you're thinkingabout watching this with a group of friends, you might be better offjust renting a movie from the local video store...

supervixen7 (2012-04-27 06:44)

This was a fun, good movie. I liked it.

I watched this movie on Sci Fi Channel and I really enjoyed it. It wasa fun movie. The animated monsters were a bit fake sometimes, but alsoreally good sometimes. But all in all, the story was well told and theacting was good. I especially like Ben Cross and the guy who actedUnferth. But Beowulf was also good. I think that for a TV movie it alsohad a nice style and looked really good. Not like some other things onthat channel. Different than other stuff. Admitedly, I don't reallyknow the original Beowulf tale, and I'm sure he didn't have a crossbowthat fires explosive heads. But it was a retelling, so why not. It's ingood fun and well done. I hope to see more like it from the Sci FiChannel! MissBulg

wong-ex (2012-04-23 06:24)

This was NOT Grendel

I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by JohnGardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but toldfrom the perspective of the monster. Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulfepic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything moreabout the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CGmonster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up theoriginal story so badly and contributing to the continued growingignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.

franklyhollywood (2012-04-22 11:37)

Excellent debut! Performances were outstanding!

I thought this was a job well done, especially when you look at theperformances. Personally, I get the feeling that this director is verytalented visually, and with working with actors. There were some prettyclassical horror shots that I really enjoyed in this film, and Ithought the lead actors did a great job. Also remember that for thepurposes of broadcasting to so many different stations, and differenttypes of end users, that things get adjusted, and tweaked beyondbelief, just so that people can see it on so many different styles ofTV, resolutions, and broadcast systems, formats, countries, etc... Ithink personally that's what happened with the CG creature at times.Just a production lovers two cents...

witchsmeller-1 (2012-04-15 08:30)

what i thought might be a halfway decent movie.....

turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fichannel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem,but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would beawesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i sawthat part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a whatlooks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when theyreach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-figroup of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle.when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movieto be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't knowwhy i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also.(this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fichannel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOUMAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATSNOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADEACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THEMOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!!

caspervovve (2012-04-15 02:56)

Beowulf was a swede

Beowulf was from Sweden, not england. It's just that the poems comefrom england. that's it! Search on google if you don't believe me. Aseveryone prob knows by now, he was a viking.Why can't movie makers try and make a movie where the actuall characterspeaks in the "real" language, not just English/American. I just hopethat Mel Gibson get a grip of this (maybe not the coming 5 years, butstill) because he makes movies with the real language, i.e Apocalyptoand the passion of the Christ.But i suppose that it would be "to hard (:S)" for everyone totranslate, duh. LOL!