If you want to be literary, read a book, don't go to the movies. And if you see this movie, it doesn't mean that you've read this classic piece of literature. It just means that you've watched a dead-eyed computer generated piece of crap with the same title as a story generations of people have loved. In fact, this goes for any film based on a book. The next person that tells me that the book is better than the film is going to get a Spoiler Alert right in the throat. No friggin' duh the book is better. The author created a 400 page story that takes you two weeks to read. The movie condenses that same story down to 90minutes. What the hell do you expect? Why the hell are you even comparing them? If someone wrote a song or created a painting based on a book would we say, "It's not as good as the book?" They are two different mediums. What I don't get is why Hollywood continually insists on making books into films with its already built in audience that will hate it. Is the entire industry so devoid of original talent and ideas that this all we can expect?
That being said, "Beowulf" sucks and not because it's not as good as the book. But rather because after 25 years of computer animation it still looks clunky, unlifelike, and generally unimpressive. The predictable 21st-centuryization of the the story, style, and dialogue snuffs out whatever resemblance this had to the original, difficult and charming text.
Predictions:
Percentage of people paying to see this film that have actually read the book: under 5
Percentage of "Beowulf" books with the "movie" cover that will actually be read: 0
It's about time you posted. What the hell happened to you anyway, did you get a day job or what? In the beginning, the posts were regular, rhythmic even like a good morning BM. What happened between now and October 13? Has the film industry gotten a genius like you constipated?
Posted by: gena | November 08, 2007 at 07:18 AM