Genres

Visitors Review

nalders 2012-05-24 21:05:45

Perhaps the Worst Movie I've Ever Seen.

99.999% pure crap. And the other .001% was a brief moment where Ithought the blond chick was going to disrobe. Nope.The dialogue was legendarily bad. The action sucked, and there was nosex (the afore mentioned blond chick is modestly dressed, alas, thewhole movie). The CGI had the dubious honor of being the worst I'veever seen on film, and the anachronisms were numerous and glaring.Acting was mediocre even from Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, the only'names' in this movie. And Marina Sirtis looked really, really bad.I've seen high school plays more capably produced. This is the kind ofmovie that MST3K thrived on. Heads should roll at Sci-Fi for allowingthis steaming pile on the air.

irvine-stuart 2012-05-24 17:31:41

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.

jkoster-2 2012-05-22 16:54:13

Not as bad as some think

I actually watched this movie twice and enjoyed it.Why do we read Beowulf in school? As an English teacher (grades 6-12),I tell students it's because it's one of the earliest surviving piecesof English literature. It also helps highlight elements of a story, andcan help students understand the history of the period. Okay, thismovie isn't the best adaptation, doesn't follow the line of the storyas close as some could wish, and has obvious flaws, but it could be auseful teaching tool. And I don't mean for your college Lit/Film class.In today's secondary school classrooms, there are many students whosimply won't read. They don't see the value in it, and this type offilm is one way to make literature palatable. And there really isn'tanything in it that would require me to send home permission slipsbefore showing it in the classroom. I wish this had been around when Iwas in high school--I might have enjoyed Beowulf 30 years ago, insteadof having to teach it first in order to see its merits.As for the quality problems others have mentioned: If SciFi has tocancel Stargate SG-1 because they can't afford the actors' salaries,then it's going to be pretty obvious that their own productions aren'tgoing to be big-budget forays into CGI and other such niceties.

Abnegatus 2012-05-22 04:56:46

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.

j_cirino 2012-05-20 22:31:00

Have the writers even read the poem?

Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears thescreenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the originalpoem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'mdisappointed. I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poemin Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read atranslation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based onwhat actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plotelements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong withbeing faithful to the text? Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce somesuper-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existedin this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previousreviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it.No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could havedefeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster withoutany weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in thisversion, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks offGrendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray whatreally happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling matchbetween the two would be much more exciting. Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless tothe true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's motherthat includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, likeFinn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in thepoem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (aforest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail tonotice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies – it's supposed to beunderground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolisminherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year wereable to do immensely better when they created a short film based onBeowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying thestory. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elementsand is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.

klchu 2012-05-20 02:57:58

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.

quickdiversion 2012-05-19 10:29:53

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.)

merity 2012-05-19 00:51:45

Wow

Wow Thor... you must have been a viking, knowing about the horns andhelmets... tell Oden and Loki I say hi. --- Now, on a more serious noteabout this movie, I really believe that the producers and the directorwere quite successful at portraying this epic poem using the media offilm. I think that the two horns on the helmets was quite a testamentto the duality of man. I also would have to say that the acting wasactually quite Shakespearian, much like Cuba Gooding Jr. in pearlharbor by Michael Bay. And my personal favorite part of thisMasterpiece of cinematic triumph was how Beowulf defeated Grendel withhis specially crafted sword of ultimate doom by cleaving the beastshead. I would have to disagree with dhickey-4 and give this epicportrayal of the journey of the human spirit a well deserved two vikinghorns up.

takseng 2012-05-12 10:59:10

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.

mattord-1 2012-05-11 18:22:26

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

franklyhollywood 2012-05-07 20:05:52

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...

glen-88 2012-05-07 08:05:23

Q&A with the Writer!

I'm an associate of Ron Fernandez and after viewing some of theenlightening comments made I thought I'd have a quick Q&A with thewriter of "Grendel". The following is a transcript: G: Hi Ron.R: Hi Glen, It's great to be here.G: So Ron, how do you feel about the movie as a whole? R: Overall I think it came out great(he says smiling) considering theresources and timetable involved in these films. I think SciFi Channeland UFO films did a super job of translating it to the screen. NickLyon, who directed it and is now doing Species 4, brought great life tothe characters, and I particularly enjoyed watching Ben Cross coax thedrama out of his scenes. Chariots of Fire to Grendel... Hmmm...G: Cool. Yeah I enjoyed watching it with you over many beers at ourfavorite pub.R: Maybe the beers helped.(both laughing) G: What did inspire you to manhandle this epic poem?R: When I was hired by the production company I realized the dauntingtask of adapting one of the greatest stories in western culture. Toughchoices had to be made in order to make this epic tale fit theparameters of a fun Saturday night SciFi Channel flick, and I thinkthose choices paid off. For example, I decided to add a love storywhich would frame the tale for modern audiences. The crossbow gun wasnot my creation, by the way, but it happens to be cheap and easy toblow things up in Bulgaria.G: I think the Rambo 2000 crossbow gun was actually pretty damn cool.But Im glad you mentioned it, because a lot of people out there don'tunderstand the process of storytelling within the constraints of aproducer and bottom line run production. Damn those wacky producers.R: The challenge is delivering a quality story to viewers at home. Ithink our film stacks up well if not better than some of the otherSciFi pictures I've seen, but the power of the original Beowulfnarrative of course helped us a lot. If you haven't read it in a whileI recommend you do. I had to read it when I was a Freshman in highschool and I didn't get it. But going back I was astounded by thebeauty of the language and the heroic character of Beowulf and theothers.G: Some of the user comments here indicated that there were somefactual mistakes made (i.e. Grendel's mother not being foughtunderwater, the townspeople being sacrificed etc.) How do you respondto this? R: We saw the original text as a launching point for therecontextualization of a classic. As I said tough choices had to bemade in terms of story and the reality of budgeting. The climatic scenein the poem, where Beowulf confronts Grendel's mother underwater was inthe first draft but you know it couldn't be done in the time alloted.As to the second part of your question, believe it or not, the story ofchildren being sacrificed to appease the angry monster is in theoriginal poem. But we chose to emphasize it.G: Do you see SciFi taking on more literary or epic narratives oradaptations? And what new projects can we expect to see from you in thefuture? R: I hope that SciFi continues to take risks by re-envisioning more ofthe classic tales of the past. Right now I'm writing another film forthem, this one set in the present and currently entitled "The Monster".It's a cross between American Werewolf in London meets Excalibur. Itshould be a hoot.G: Always a pleasure Ron.R: Thanks, Glen.

cpage-5 2012-05-06 05:38:57

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.

anonymous anonymously 2012-05-05 16:41:36

Let's keep things in perspective...

I don't think anyone here would expect an Oscar nod for a Sci-Fioriginal movie, so let's keep things in perspective. This productionactually had a budget of only 1.4 million, as you well know that'salmost more than they pour into one episode of BattleStar Galactica.For what it is worth (meaning taking the budget into consideration),It's pretty damn good. Sure let's all make fun of the CG monster andthe fact that it didn't bleed even when it's head got cut off. Butthere was a pretty epic setting (Bulgaria), and aside from a couple badseeds the acting was pretty good, and the Photography was much betterthan average.Let's consider the behind the scenes too... "Script", and let's pretendthe director had a bit of latitude. The direction was very good. Mostpeople say "garbage in - garbage out". I feel given what there was towork with the director made the most of it and pulled it off deservingpraise. And you don't have to even have liked the flick to approach itin a critical way like this.In my opinion this is a great forum to discuss all aspects of anyrelease. My only piece of advice is to please not react in a knee-jerkway immediately after you've condemned someone's creative work. Greatconstructive criticism takes just as much effort and introspection.It's really easy to say something sucks; people likely won't pay youmuch attention though unless you do it constructively.

jayce2279 2012-05-03 21:28:47

Too much CGI, not enough cult

I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is noexcuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne ofFire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all doneon shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managedto create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors anda good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles andbeautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a verygood low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completelyruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects andcolorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may notbe Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining lowbudget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible specialeffects and appealing characters.

witchsmeller-1 2012-05-03 10:55:58

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!!!

OC47150 2012-05-02 01:09:28

Did anyone read the poem?

I had to read Beowulf several times in high school and college forEnglish lit classes. I'm gong to find my old books and see how far offthe movie was from the poem.Just to get through the movie (I taped it) I started doing somethingelse. Rewinded a scene or two. The acting was so-so. I kept thinking, okay, Ben Cross has found steadywork over the years, but steady, quality work?Like someone previously posted, the sets were the highlight. Don't knowif the sets actually existed or were in a studio. Need to check thatout.

AnimeKingGT12 2012-05-01 07:26:48

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.

Peter Gareis 2012-04-28 04:23:32

Never Done Well

Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was gradingpapers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can saythat no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. TheIcelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, andI did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with theChristopher Lambert version. Yuck.What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is thefaithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I amused to both with all the versions I have seen.Delighted Regardless, Peter

lemn-peal 2012-04-27 11:28:15

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.