Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

One of the great anti-war movie

tt0020629

Early in the war, Germany is winning and everybody is eager to fight. A group of schoolboys are rallied by their jingoistic teacher to be the Iron Youth of Germany. They are trained by the hardened Himmelstoss. At the front, they find the war to be an ugly, muddy affair. Death and war is not the glory that they were looking for. The young Paul Bäumer struggles to save a french soldier after stabbing him. He returns home to confront his teacher. Then he ends in the horrors of the frontlines.This is one of the great anti-war movie stemming from the first World War. It is heightened by the fact that the movie follows the German soldiers as if there is no difference in the war experience. It takes away the easy patriotism and jingo slogans. There is the great machine gun scene where soldiers are mow down like wheat. It hits the ugliness and the pointlessness of war hard. Also it's simply a well made film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-217

ur2898520

title: One of the great anti-war movie review: Early in the war, Germany is winning and everybody is eager to fight. A group of schoolboys are rallied by their jingoistic teacher to be the Iron Youth of Germany. They are trained by the hardened Himmelstoss. At the front, they find the war to be an ugly, muddy affair. Death and war is not the glory that they were looking for. The young Paul Bäumer struggles to save a french soldier after stabbing him. He returns home to confront his teacher. Then he ends in the horrors of the frontlines.This is one of the great anti-war movie stemming from the first World War. It is heightened by the fact that the movie follows the German soldiers as if there is no difference in the war experience. It takes away the easy patriotism and jingo slogans. There is the great machine gun scene where soldiers are mow down like wheat. It hits the ugliness and the pointlessness of war hard. Also it's simply a well made film.

One of the most powerful anti-war statements ever put on film.

tt0020629

The film is considered a realistic and harrowing account of warfare in World War I. In 1914, a group of German teenagers volunteer for action on the Western Front, but they become disillusioned, and none of them survives.All Quiet On The Western Front is a landmark of American cinema and Universal's biggest and most serious undertaking until the 1960s, this highly emotive war film, with its occasional outbursts of bravura direction, fixed in millions of minds the popular image of what it was like in the trenches, even more so than Journey's End (1930) which had shown the Allied viewpoint. Despite dated moments, it retains its overall power and remains a great pacifist work.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-166

ur22131361

title: One of the most powerful anti-war statements ever put on film. review: The film is considered a realistic and harrowing account of warfare in World War I. In 1914, a group of German teenagers volunteer for action on the Western Front, but they become disillusioned, and none of them survives.All Quiet On The Western Front is a landmark of American cinema and Universal's biggest and most serious undertaking until the 1960s, this highly emotive war film, with its occasional outbursts of bravura direction, fixed in millions of minds the popular image of what it was like in the trenches, even more so than Journey's End (1930) which had shown the Allied viewpoint. Despite dated moments, it retains its overall power and remains a great pacifist work.

Effective but with many flaws

tt0020629

All Quiet on the Western Front has been hallmarked as one of the best and most important movies of the 20th century. However, despite this being an influential culturally important film, there are a number of problems with it that have to be addressed without influence from the film's popularity.The story has a well-paced traditional progression of the teenagers happily enlisting for war, then experiencing it and changing through it. It is interesting, even if you already know more or less what is going to happen, considering the subject matter. The movie proclaims at the beginning that it is not meant to show an adventure because war is no adventure, but it does have a very adventuresque and epic feel to it.Unfortunately, the writing and the way this film is directed make it feel very unnatural at times. There are times when the characters do not talk like real people would and their acting is very artificial, like "I am acting now". Actors either overact or underact. Some scenes last shorter than it feels they should.There is a short scene where a guy looks sad, the other guy says "Oh come on" and the first guy smiles. Of course, that is how humans work. There was a moment when during a battle someone exclaimed out loud "This is terrible" and it was hard not to laugh at a line like this.It is entirely possible that this is a style of dialogue that was chosen purposefully, but that does not make it any better. As a result of the lack of believability it is hard to get engrossed in the film.Yet again there are also a good deal of well-acted, heart-felt performances, especially towards the 2nd half of the film. Louis Wolheim and Lew Ayres play the two most prominent roles and are good charming actors. Lew, has a lot of subtle but deep expression in his face.However, the overall problem with the characters is that they are hardly introduced. We know almost nothing about them. The story centers the characters played by Lew and Louis and therefore, simply as a result of them being a lot on screen, you get to know their characters and recognize their faces, but everyone else is just the same. When these other people inevitably start dying you hardly notice. The movie tries to make a big deal out of one of the deaths but I could not even remember the guy's name.It is an impressive looking film, with good night scenes and explosions. It must have, at least for a while, have been the record holder for the most explosions in a movie. It is grim and good at delivering tension when it wants to. There are some really effective scenes that convey the tragically ironic nature of trench warfare.However, in the visual department there are also some problems. You know how in the older days there were not many special effects for people getting shot. Well that is fine, but when soldiers are pretending to throw grenades and there is clearly nothing being thrown, you must admit that is weird. You are telling me you could afford all those giant explosions but not some cheap props to use as grenades? At another time, an actor plays dead but you can see him breath. The director could have ordered the camera further back; could have only shown the face; could have made the actor stop breathing and make only short takes. Why keep a shot with a clear mistake in it? It can only be presumed, that just as with the unnatural dialogue, the makers see the message as the important thing and do not care about the details, but that is poor choice because the details do get noticed and they do detract from the realism and therefore from the belief.The film has good sound effects for explosions and gunfire. Interesting choice is that there is no music, apart from what you hear during the credits, but then perhaps music would be antagonistic to the message of the film. The silence and special effects are used to a good effect and do not need music for more dramatisation.All quiet on the western front is a valiant effort, and definitely memorable, but has quite a few flaws. It is well shot and has many cool looking moments, but some of its effects are surprisingly poor. It has good actors but a lack of realism that makes it feel sanitised.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-213

ur5727872

title: Effective but with many flaws review: All Quiet on the Western Front has been hallmarked as one of the best and most important movies of the 20th century. However, despite this being an influential culturally important film, there are a number of problems with it that have to be addressed without influence from the film's popularity.The story has a well-paced traditional progression of the teenagers happily enlisting for war, then experiencing it and changing through it. It is interesting, even if you already know more or less what is going to happen, considering the subject matter. The movie proclaims at the beginning that it is not meant to show an adventure because war is no adventure, but it does have a very adventuresque and epic feel to it.Unfortunately, the writing and the way this film is directed make it feel very unnatural at times. There are times when the characters do not talk like real people would and their acting is very artificial, like "I am acting now". Actors either overact or underact. Some scenes last shorter than it feels they should.There is a short scene where a guy looks sad, the other guy says "Oh come on" and the first guy smiles. Of course, that is how humans work. There was a moment when during a battle someone exclaimed out loud "This is terrible" and it was hard not to laugh at a line like this.It is entirely possible that this is a style of dialogue that was chosen purposefully, but that does not make it any better. As a result of the lack of believability it is hard to get engrossed in the film.Yet again there are also a good deal of well-acted, heart-felt performances, especially towards the 2nd half of the film. Louis Wolheim and Lew Ayres play the two most prominent roles and are good charming actors. Lew, has a lot of subtle but deep expression in his face.However, the overall problem with the characters is that they are hardly introduced. We know almost nothing about them. The story centers the characters played by Lew and Louis and therefore, simply as a result of them being a lot on screen, you get to know their characters and recognize their faces, but everyone else is just the same. When these other people inevitably start dying you hardly notice. The movie tries to make a big deal out of one of the deaths but I could not even remember the guy's name.It is an impressive looking film, with good night scenes and explosions. It must have, at least for a while, have been the record holder for the most explosions in a movie. It is grim and good at delivering tension when it wants to. There are some really effective scenes that convey the tragically ironic nature of trench warfare.However, in the visual department there are also some problems. You know how in the older days there were not many special effects for people getting shot. Well that is fine, but when soldiers are pretending to throw grenades and there is clearly nothing being thrown, you must admit that is weird. You are telling me you could afford all those giant explosions but not some cheap props to use as grenades? At another time, an actor plays dead but you can see him breath. The director could have ordered the camera further back; could have only shown the face; could have made the actor stop breathing and make only short takes. Why keep a shot with a clear mistake in it? It can only be presumed, that just as with the unnatural dialogue, the makers see the message as the important thing and do not care about the details, but that is poor choice because the details do get noticed and they do detract from the realism and therefore from the belief.The film has good sound effects for explosions and gunfire. Interesting choice is that there is no music, apart from what you hear during the credits, but then perhaps music would be antagonistic to the message of the film. The silence and special effects are used to a good effect and do not need music for more dramatisation.All quiet on the western front is a valiant effort, and definitely memorable, but has quite a few flaws. It is well shot and has many cool looking moments, but some of its effects are surprisingly poor. It has good actors but a lack of realism that makes it feel sanitised.

After all war is war.

tt0020629

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT belongs among the best of the best war dramas. Oscar-winning directing by Lewis Milestone. A tense story that doesn't take a breath often. A group of friends join the army during World War 1 and after training sent to the Western Front. New recruits are forced to learn the ways of war...crawling in the muck and mud dodging gun fire, bracing for bombs and looking death in the face. Kill or be killed and asking why. What starts wars anyway. Friendships are made only to be lost to death. Surviving hunger to fight another day. Anti-war attitude screams out loud, with astounding war scenes that ties your stomach in knots. No question why this film won the Oscar for Best Picture.A young Lew Ayres leads a massive cast that features: Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Russell Gleason, Harold Goodwin, Ben Alexander, Scott Kolk, William Bakewell and G. Pat Collins.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-161

ur0449021

title: After all war is war. review: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT belongs among the best of the best war dramas. Oscar-winning directing by Lewis Milestone. A tense story that doesn't take a breath often. A group of friends join the army during World War 1 and after training sent to the Western Front. New recruits are forced to learn the ways of war...crawling in the muck and mud dodging gun fire, bracing for bombs and looking death in the face. Kill or be killed and asking why. What starts wars anyway. Friendships are made only to be lost to death. Surviving hunger to fight another day. Anti-war attitude screams out loud, with astounding war scenes that ties your stomach in knots. No question why this film won the Oscar for Best Picture.A young Lew Ayres leads a massive cast that features: Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Russell Gleason, Harold Goodwin, Ben Alexander, Scott Kolk, William Bakewell and G. Pat Collins.

The Butterfly Effect

tt0020629

Here is a Masterpiece of Filmmaking that Could be used to Educate Young, Bias Moviegoers who won't go Near a Black and White or Anything Made before Their Birth Date. Because it is Simply One of the Greatest Movies Ever Made Defying the Passage of Time. it is as Powerful and Impressive Today as it was in 1930. A Truly Amazing, Pristinely Crafted Film, with an Eternal Resonating Message. The Stunning Framing of Images with Wide and Intricate Placements of Pictures Within Pictures is Remarkable from the Very First Scene. Warfare in the Trenches and its Effect both Psychologically and Physically is Portrayed Realistically with a You Are There Believability as much as any War Movie to this Day.There is Blood and Pain, Severed Limbs and Severe Agony, Rats and Lice, Horror and Meat Grinder Grittiness. A Definition of Classic is to "inspire imitation" and here it can be Evidenced by the Boot Camp Scenes (Full Metal Jacket 2005) and the Machine Gun Slaughter (The Wild Bunch 1969), just to Name a Couple.It is Very Difficult to Find Anyone, be it Critic or Fan, that came Away from this Film with Anything but Admiration and Praise. Won the Oscar for Best Picture of the Year, but it is One of the Best Pictures of Any Year.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-207

ur33374263

title: The Butterfly Effect review: Here is a Masterpiece of Filmmaking that Could be used to Educate Young, Bias Moviegoers who won't go Near a Black and White or Anything Made before Their Birth Date. Because it is Simply One of the Greatest Movies Ever Made Defying the Passage of Time. it is as Powerful and Impressive Today as it was in 1930. A Truly Amazing, Pristinely Crafted Film, with an Eternal Resonating Message. The Stunning Framing of Images with Wide and Intricate Placements of Pictures Within Pictures is Remarkable from the Very First Scene. Warfare in the Trenches and its Effect both Psychologically and Physically is Portrayed Realistically with a You Are There Believability as much as any War Movie to this Day.There is Blood and Pain, Severed Limbs and Severe Agony, Rats and Lice, Horror and Meat Grinder Grittiness. A Definition of Classic is to "inspire imitation" and here it can be Evidenced by the Boot Camp Scenes (Full Metal Jacket 2005) and the Machine Gun Slaughter (The Wild Bunch 1969), just to Name a Couple.It is Very Difficult to Find Anyone, be it Critic or Fan, that came Away from this Film with Anything but Admiration and Praise. Won the Oscar for Best Picture of the Year, but it is One of the Best Pictures of Any Year.

Humanity at War

tt0020629

Having read the book, I caught this film on TV late one night. As other users have commented, it's amazing that this story of men at war was made at a time when the majority of Hollywood's output was designed to transport movie-goers away from grim reality. It's also remarkable for portraying a recent enemy as a human being rather than a racial stereotype. Despite his German uniform, Paul Baumer could be from any country involved in World War I. His experiences in "All Quiet on the Western Front" were certainly shared by the soldiers on either side of No Man's Land.There are other anti-war movies that deal with the attempted de-humanisation of those who are trained to kill and the sheer horror of modern mechanised warfare, but this film is one of the first and there are few that can ever equal it. Perhaps, as other users have said, this is because the people who made it were so deeply affected by the experience of the Great War. The power of the film could also be due to the power of its source material. Erich Maria Remarque based his book "All Quiet on the Western Front" on his experiences of combat in the trenches. The team of screenwriters who transformed the book into a film script did not dishonour it in the process.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-115

ur8345459

title: Humanity at War review: Having read the book, I caught this film on TV late one night. As other users have commented, it's amazing that this story of men at war was made at a time when the majority of Hollywood's output was designed to transport movie-goers away from grim reality. It's also remarkable for portraying a recent enemy as a human being rather than a racial stereotype. Despite his German uniform, Paul Baumer could be from any country involved in World War I. His experiences in "All Quiet on the Western Front" were certainly shared by the soldiers on either side of No Man's Land.There are other anti-war movies that deal with the attempted de-humanisation of those who are trained to kill and the sheer horror of modern mechanised warfare, but this film is one of the first and there are few that can ever equal it. Perhaps, as other users have said, this is because the people who made it were so deeply affected by the experience of the Great War. The power of the film could also be due to the power of its source material. Erich Maria Remarque based his book "All Quiet on the Western Front" on his experiences of combat in the trenches. The team of screenwriters who transformed the book into a film script did not dishonour it in the process.

War is Hell - The Gold Standard of the Anti-War/War Film!

tt0020629

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930) **** The first - and some say best - war film (and film about war - there is a difference) is still the gold standard for showing the perilous hell men face in war with this character-heavy look at the after-effects of a group of gung-ho students who are goaded into enlisting to fight for the fatherland - Germany - without question and tragically paying for it with literally their lives. Based on German writer Erich Maria Ramarque's novel - with six credited screenwriters including future filmmaker George Abbott - and an uncredited Lewis Milestone - the film's director - and winner of Best Director and Best Picture among its four including the aforementioned screenplay adaptation and the beautifully shot cinematography by Arthur Edeson. With a star-making performance of freshly scrubbed, boy- next-door charm and idealism-dashed chutzpah by Lew Ayres as the green recruit whose loss of innocence still stings while his mentor and world-weary mentor Louis Wolheim - terrific - in fact both should've been nominated for their acting - acts as the voice of reason (and doom). For the film vaults: the chilling battle amongst a decrepit graveyard and the penultimate image of beauty being literally destroyed as a shocking symbol of innocence truly crushed. One of the most important anti-war films ever; a must see for every serious film-goer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-191

ur0937743

title: War is Hell - The Gold Standard of the Anti-War/War Film! review: ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930) **** The first - and some say best - war film (and film about war - there is a difference) is still the gold standard for showing the perilous hell men face in war with this character-heavy look at the after-effects of a group of gung-ho students who are goaded into enlisting to fight for the fatherland - Germany - without question and tragically paying for it with literally their lives. Based on German writer Erich Maria Ramarque's novel - with six credited screenwriters including future filmmaker George Abbott - and an uncredited Lewis Milestone - the film's director - and winner of Best Director and Best Picture among its four including the aforementioned screenplay adaptation and the beautifully shot cinematography by Arthur Edeson. With a star-making performance of freshly scrubbed, boy- next-door charm and idealism-dashed chutzpah by Lew Ayres as the green recruit whose loss of innocence still stings while his mentor and world-weary mentor Louis Wolheim - terrific - in fact both should've been nominated for their acting - acts as the voice of reason (and doom). For the film vaults: the chilling battle amongst a decrepit graveyard and the penultimate image of beauty being literally destroyed as a shocking symbol of innocence truly crushed. One of the most important anti-war films ever; a must see for every serious film-goer.

When in Rome, just stay away from this movie

tt1185416

With the economy the way it is I have figured out the exact way to make a few million dollars, it's really easy: I'll make a romantic comedy! All I need to do is have an annoying hard working bitter female who has given up on love, somehow finds it with bland purse accessory man, their romance falls in some way for 10 minutes but they find that they really do love each other and all ends well. Bam, I have at least 5 million dollars, only problem being that this way is too easy and other directors have beaten me to it. In this case we have When In Rome, a wonderfully pretentious and predictable romantic comedy that tries way too hard in the slap stick comedy department. Kristen Bell is still somewhat hot off the more humorous romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Hollywood is testing to see if she's leading lady material. Let me tell you something, if this is the first choice she's going to make to prove that she can bank in a big hit movie, she failed big time. The movie bombed hoping that this will lead to Hollywood giving up on the stupid predictable plots, non existent chemistry between two young hot actors who are getting by on looks and the most bland jokes in the world, When In Rome was just a bad movie.A successful and single art curator Beth is at a point in her life where love seems like a luxury she just can't afford. Years of waiting for the perfect romance has made Beth bitter. One day, she flies to Rome to attend her younger sister Joan's impulsive wedding. She meets Nick, who rescues her in a couple of difficult situations but is just as much of a clumsy clod as she is. They hit it off well and reach a point where both parties take an interest in the other. Just as Beth convinces herself to believe in love again, she sees Nick kissing another woman, who turns out to be the groom's 'crazy cousin'. Slightly drunk, she picks up coins from the "fountain of love". She later learns from Joan that legend says, if you take coins from the fountain, the owner of the coin will fall in love with you. She has to return the coins to the fountain to break the spell.There are times where I really do want to be like my other girlfriends and think that these movies are so cute and sweet, it's a curse seeing so many movies at times because I guess I'm the stick in the mud when it comes to girl night and a movie. But I guess it's also a blessing because I'd rather see these movies for what they really are and honestly I hate to say it, but these romantic comedies are sick ways for Hollywood to make more money without putting any effort in. Kristen Bell doesn't work well as a lead actress and had no chemistry with the other actors. Her character wasn't likable at all and was so predictable, why do all these female characters have to be bitter? Come on, Kristen Bell having a hard time finding love? Not completely unrealistic but highly unbelievable still. She has a hard tough boss, the cute likable sister who was lucky enough to find love and the typical friends who have to encourage her to find love still. I know what you are thinking as you are reading my comment "Why if you hate romantic comedies so much, do you continue to watch them?", my answer is that I always have a little hope for film when I start watching it, but when I see it going in the same direction as the last time, when it's just another copy and paste story, that's when I give up. I just feel the need to warn the world of this sick plot to get innocent people's money, but I guess it's their choice and no I will not recommend this film if my life depended on it and it's forced uncomfortable humor.1/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-66

ur1293485

title: When in Rome, just stay away from this movie review: With the economy the way it is I have figured out the exact way to make a few million dollars, it's really easy: I'll make a romantic comedy! All I need to do is have an annoying hard working bitter female who has given up on love, somehow finds it with bland purse accessory man, their romance falls in some way for 10 minutes but they find that they really do love each other and all ends well. Bam, I have at least 5 million dollars, only problem being that this way is too easy and other directors have beaten me to it. In this case we have When In Rome, a wonderfully pretentious and predictable romantic comedy that tries way too hard in the slap stick comedy department. Kristen Bell is still somewhat hot off the more humorous romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Hollywood is testing to see if she's leading lady material. Let me tell you something, if this is the first choice she's going to make to prove that she can bank in a big hit movie, she failed big time. The movie bombed hoping that this will lead to Hollywood giving up on the stupid predictable plots, non existent chemistry between two young hot actors who are getting by on looks and the most bland jokes in the world, When In Rome was just a bad movie.A successful and single art curator Beth is at a point in her life where love seems like a luxury she just can't afford. Years of waiting for the perfect romance has made Beth bitter. One day, she flies to Rome to attend her younger sister Joan's impulsive wedding. She meets Nick, who rescues her in a couple of difficult situations but is just as much of a clumsy clod as she is. They hit it off well and reach a point where both parties take an interest in the other. Just as Beth convinces herself to believe in love again, she sees Nick kissing another woman, who turns out to be the groom's 'crazy cousin'. Slightly drunk, she picks up coins from the "fountain of love". She later learns from Joan that legend says, if you take coins from the fountain, the owner of the coin will fall in love with you. She has to return the coins to the fountain to break the spell.There are times where I really do want to be like my other girlfriends and think that these movies are so cute and sweet, it's a curse seeing so many movies at times because I guess I'm the stick in the mud when it comes to girl night and a movie. But I guess it's also a blessing because I'd rather see these movies for what they really are and honestly I hate to say it, but these romantic comedies are sick ways for Hollywood to make more money without putting any effort in. Kristen Bell doesn't work well as a lead actress and had no chemistry with the other actors. Her character wasn't likable at all and was so predictable, why do all these female characters have to be bitter? Come on, Kristen Bell having a hard time finding love? Not completely unrealistic but highly unbelievable still. She has a hard tough boss, the cute likable sister who was lucky enough to find love and the typical friends who have to encourage her to find love still. I know what you are thinking as you are reading my comment "Why if you hate romantic comedies so much, do you continue to watch them?", my answer is that I always have a little hope for film when I start watching it, but when I see it going in the same direction as the last time, when it's just another copy and paste story, that's when I give up. I just feel the need to warn the world of this sick plot to get innocent people's money, but I guess it's their choice and no I will not recommend this film if my life depended on it and it's forced uncomfortable humor.1/10

cute romantic comedy

tt1185416

It's been a while since a good romantic comedy has been released and I think this one was pretty good. It had some funny scenes like Beth trying to break the vase at her sister's wedding, the magic scenes with Jon Heder, and Dax Shepherd as the full of himself male model. I also liked the premise of the story with Beth being in Rome and picking up some coins from a fountain of love. By doing so, she releases a spell that the guys who threw the coins in the fountain, will fall in love with her. So, she goes back to New York, and starts being followed by some weirdos professing their love. However she met one guy at the wedding, Nick, that she really likes. The big mystery is was one of the coins she took one Nick tossed. Circumstances lead Beth to think one of the coins is his, so she believes he really doesn't love her out of free will. But true love prevails in the end.FINAL VERDICT: A sweet short film. I recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-61

ur1773414

title: cute romantic comedy review: It's been a while since a good romantic comedy has been released and I think this one was pretty good. It had some funny scenes like Beth trying to break the vase at her sister's wedding, the magic scenes with Jon Heder, and Dax Shepherd as the full of himself male model. I also liked the premise of the story with Beth being in Rome and picking up some coins from a fountain of love. By doing so, she releases a spell that the guys who threw the coins in the fountain, will fall in love with her. So, she goes back to New York, and starts being followed by some weirdos professing their love. However she met one guy at the wedding, Nick, that she really likes. The big mystery is was one of the coins she took one Nick tossed. Circumstances lead Beth to think one of the coins is his, so she believes he really doesn't love her out of free will. But true love prevails in the end.FINAL VERDICT: A sweet short film. I recommend it.

decent enough romantic comedy

tt1185416

i thought this was a decent enough romantic comedy.it leaned more toward the romantic side than the comedy,but it had some funny bits scattered throughout.i liked the odd ball group of characters.the two leads,Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel were very good and had excellent chemistry.Don Johnson was good in a small role.the story was fairly predictable(you pretty much know how it's gonna end) but it wasn't boring.as far as romantic comedies go,this one was far from the worst i have seen.it's rated 5.1 here on this site,but that seems a bit low too in my opinion me.you could do a lot worse with you time.for me,When in Rome is a 6/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-69

ur11423174

title: decent enough romantic comedy review: i thought this was a decent enough romantic comedy.it leaned more toward the romantic side than the comedy,but it had some funny bits scattered throughout.i liked the odd ball group of characters.the two leads,Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel were very good and had excellent chemistry.Don Johnson was good in a small role.the story was fairly predictable(you pretty much know how it's gonna end) but it wasn't boring.as far as romantic comedies go,this one was far from the worst i have seen.it's rated 5.1 here on this site,but that seems a bit low too in my opinion me.you could do a lot worse with you time.for me,When in Rome is a 6/10

Magical Romance

tt1185416

I'm reminded of Sarah Michelle Gellar in "Simply Irresistible" (1999). The experience of love seems magical, ever since the classic romantic movie Three Coins in the Fountain (1954) which was nominated for Best Oscar. As impractical as it seems, love seems to defy reason and mathematical precision and probability, from Practical Magic (1998) and witchcraft to love as impractical and worldly crazy as Sandra Bullock in All About Steve (2009).This movie is enchanting, entertaining, and perhaps ridiculous, but it is fun, and a feel-good date movie that is mysteriously predictable, but mostly stress-free, get one's mind off of everyday "crap." A get away fantasy movie. A good time with Kristen Bell of Frozen (2013) fame.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-87

ur0972645

title: Magical Romance review: I'm reminded of Sarah Michelle Gellar in "Simply Irresistible" (1999). The experience of love seems magical, ever since the classic romantic movie Three Coins in the Fountain (1954) which was nominated for Best Oscar. As impractical as it seems, love seems to defy reason and mathematical precision and probability, from Practical Magic (1998) and witchcraft to love as impractical and worldly crazy as Sandra Bullock in All About Steve (2009).This movie is enchanting, entertaining, and perhaps ridiculous, but it is fun, and a feel-good date movie that is mysteriously predictable, but mostly stress-free, get one's mind off of everyday "crap." A get away fantasy movie. A good time with Kristen Bell of Frozen (2013) fame.

Its not worthy

tt1185416

When in Rome is the story of a young New Yorker named Beth (Kristen Bell) disillusioned with romance, takes a whirlwind trip to Rome where she defiantly plucks magic coins from fountain of love, inexplicably igniting the passion of an odd group of suitors: a sausage magnate (DANNY DEVITO), a street magician (JON HEDER), an adoring painter (WILL ARNETT) and a self-admiring model (DAX SHEPARD). But when a charming reporter (JOSH DUHAMEL) pursues her with equal zest, how will she know if his love is the real thing? This is the typical romantic comedy chick flick. It has some funny moments but in general the situations are kinda ridiculous and corny. The story is a little interesting but also very predictable. The locations are good , you can see beautiful landscapes from New York and Rome. It also has some nice music that fits good with the movie. The cast is pretty good but the performances of some of them are lame. Kristen Bell is decent, Josh Duhamel is also good, Will Arnett and Dax Sheppard are hilarious and Danny DeVito and Angelica Huston are convincing enough but the one that really disappoints me was Jon Heder, I know he is a really good comedian but his role as Chris Angel imitation was really disastrous. In conclusion, When in Rome can be entertaining but its not so don't waste your time watching this and if you still wanna see it, watch it on DVD.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-26

ur6208088

title: Its not worthy review: When in Rome is the story of a young New Yorker named Beth (Kristen Bell) disillusioned with romance, takes a whirlwind trip to Rome where she defiantly plucks magic coins from fountain of love, inexplicably igniting the passion of an odd group of suitors: a sausage magnate (DANNY DEVITO), a street magician (JON HEDER), an adoring painter (WILL ARNETT) and a self-admiring model (DAX SHEPARD). But when a charming reporter (JOSH DUHAMEL) pursues her with equal zest, how will she know if his love is the real thing? This is the typical romantic comedy chick flick. It has some funny moments but in general the situations are kinda ridiculous and corny. The story is a little interesting but also very predictable. The locations are good , you can see beautiful landscapes from New York and Rome. It also has some nice music that fits good with the movie. The cast is pretty good but the performances of some of them are lame. Kristen Bell is decent, Josh Duhamel is also good, Will Arnett and Dax Sheppard are hilarious and Danny DeVito and Angelica Huston are convincing enough but the one that really disappoints me was Jon Heder, I know he is a really good comedian but his role as Chris Angel imitation was really disastrous. In conclusion, When in Rome can be entertaining but its not so don't waste your time watching this and if you still wanna see it, watch it on DVD.

Not as bad as they come, but still not good.

tt1185416

Kristen Bell is cute and charming. Though I never saw Veronica Mars, I have liked her in all of her films. But I haven't exactly liked all of her films. I loved Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Serious moonlight. But didn't like Couple's retreat or her most recent, When in Rome.When in Rome isn't that bad. Not as bad as everyone made it seem or as I expected. But like most rom-coms, it is drowned in clichés, it is way too predictable, and unconvincing. It's shame, cause Bell is so likable. But the film fails. Not like you'd expect it to though.Bell plays a single business woman who goes to Rome for her sister's wedding. While there she meets a guy(played by the unlikable Josh Duhamel). When there she pulls out four coins from a famous fountain and there is some silly thing involving four guys(played ridiculously by Danny Devito,Will Arnet,Jon Heder) and blah blah blah typical,typical,typical,yawn yawn yawn.When in Rome is better than some of the other crap handed to us, such as The Ugly truth, Valentine's day, All about Steve, etc. But it isn't far off. Why can't a rom-com be as freshly funny and charming as The Proposal or (500) days of Summer? Why?!The Proposal worked do to the charm of Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock. If this film works at all, it's do to the charm of Kristen Bell. I also at least laughed a little, unlike the above mentioned as bad. I laughed a little. But this movie just doesn't work. It's not the worst film of the year, it's not the best, it's not the best romantic comedy, it's not the worst. I can't recommend it. I say skip it. But it's not that bad.When in Rome: C+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-51

ur22881716

title: Not as bad as they come, but still not good. review: Kristen Bell is cute and charming. Though I never saw Veronica Mars, I have liked her in all of her films. But I haven't exactly liked all of her films. I loved Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Serious moonlight. But didn't like Couple's retreat or her most recent, When in Rome.When in Rome isn't that bad. Not as bad as everyone made it seem or as I expected. But like most rom-coms, it is drowned in clichés, it is way too predictable, and unconvincing. It's shame, cause Bell is so likable. But the film fails. Not like you'd expect it to though.Bell plays a single business woman who goes to Rome for her sister's wedding. While there she meets a guy(played by the unlikable Josh Duhamel). When there she pulls out four coins from a famous fountain and there is some silly thing involving four guys(played ridiculously by Danny Devito,Will Arnet,Jon Heder) and blah blah blah typical,typical,typical,yawn yawn yawn.When in Rome is better than some of the other crap handed to us, such as The Ugly truth, Valentine's day, All about Steve, etc. But it isn't far off. Why can't a rom-com be as freshly funny and charming as The Proposal or (500) days of Summer? Why?!The Proposal worked do to the charm of Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock. If this film works at all, it's do to the charm of Kristen Bell. I also at least laughed a little, unlike the above mentioned as bad. I laughed a little. But this movie just doesn't work. It's not the worst film of the year, it's not the best, it's not the best romantic comedy, it's not the worst. I can't recommend it. I say skip it. But it's not that bad.When in Rome: C+

This marriage has a shelf life of a banana … When in Rome

tt1185416

Here is my call to arms people … go visit the Guggenheim Museum and donate money. After The International last year shooting up Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural wonder, New York City decided to get some more cash influx by allowing it to be showcased in this year's rom-com crazy flick When in Rome. This film is by no means good—at all. However, that said, I laughed a whole lot. Once you leave the plot behind and start to just let the absurd supporting characters wash over you with their eccentricities and obnoxious foibles, you'll find the smile you were looking for. I did some reconnaissance before my screening and was surprised by the multiple comments about it being one of the funniest movies the viewer had ever seen. Now, I know hyperbole when I see it, but I had the glimmer of hope that maybe I'd at least be entertained. While the beginning twenty or so minutes went by in an excruciatingly painful manner, once Josh Duhamel and magically entranced kooks entered the fray, I was able to sit back and have a good time.Where are we, though, in terms of world creativity when this plot gets green-lighted? Beth has been spurned her whole life where love is concerned, instead diving into her work as a crutch disguised as coping mechanism. Once her younger sister finds love and marriage in only two weeks, she must journey over to Rome for the wedding—while in the midst of a huge exhibit at the museum for which she is curator—to also be kicked by amore once again. This latest effort, at the hands of Duhamel's Nick, or so she thinks, leads her to pick out five coins from the fountain of love, keeping their wishes for everlasting romance in her purse. It is at this point where hilarity begins, ushering in the rogues gallery of Will Arnett, Jon Heder, Dax Shepard, and Danny DeVito to fawn over and stalk Beth back to NYC. It is both their desperately insane attempts at wooing and Nick's authentic courting hampered by clumsiness and bad luck that make this film worth watching. Admittedly, I can only watch an actor slapstick his way into light posts or down openings in the street so many times before becoming bored, but something about Duhamel's affable demeanor kept it fresh despite the repetition.The story itself really is atrocious. Just the fact that Roman mysticism and folklore is behind it all makes me roll my eyes, so feeling any sort of connection to Beth's plight is unattainable. I did, however, really like Kristen Bell in this role, and that says something coming from someone who has never been a big fan. She gives the part much more than it deserves and tries her best to let us care for her even though it is her troubles that we are enjoying. Full of clichés and gimmicks, When in Rome's setups fall flat across the board. Her job being in peril and Anjelica Huston's mean boss are predictable, watching her newlywed sister in Rome cooking naked with her new husband unoriginal, and the lame attempt at making us think that somehow the two romantic leads won't end up together in the end is pandering. But all the little things in between, the tiny adventures that could have been skits on a comic variety show excel on their own, even if they seem out of place in the story at hand. What can be out of place, though, when your four stalkers are a street magician, a vain model working on spec, a wannabe painter, and an older sausage magnate? With a mix like that, anything goes.Before getting into the big name bit parts, I want to mention a couple unknowns. Why both leads needed a sidekick with insanely wide-open eyes is beyond me. Kate Micucci is cute as Stacy, but also kind of creepy with that blank stare, while Bobby Moynihan, playing Puck, (a not so subtle nod to Shakespeare's jester), is pretty darn funny. Using "Roots" as a punchline and really just playing the goof opposite Duhamel's star-crossed lover, I hope to see more of this guy. But that's enough of the newbies; let's get onto the veterans. Each of these four suitors is completely two-dimensional, trying their best to bring some laughs while trapped in thankless, cheesy parts. DeVito is a tad overzealous going after a girl more than half his age, yet the completion of his arc worked for me, although he is the throwaway of the group. Arnett's fake Italian schtick gets old, but I can't get enough of that innocent, stupefied look whenever he does something wrong; Heder is annoying and strangely humorous in his costume alone, allowing a Napoleon Dynamite guest star be his role's finest hour; and Dax Shepard never ceases to amaze in bringing laughs with his characters' gigantic egos in everything he does.I'd like to tell director Mark Steven Johnson to stick to comic book superhero films, yet that didn't work out too well for him either. The only real thing I can fault him for here is the fact that he took on the project to begin with. There really is nothing original in the script besides some funny moments that hit hard due to the joke, not its relevance to the plot. Without an extended sequence of dining in the dark that contained the always-wonderful Kristen Schaal, a clown car gag that was much funnier than it should have been, and Keir O'Donnell's knack for playing very odd characters, I wouldn't have been able to find anything redeeming. A few effective parts cannot make up for the lackluster whole, no matter how hard I did laugh at times. I do think both Bell and Duhamel have what it takes to make a good romantic comedy together, knowing how to play the charming, romantic couple. Sadly this isn't quite it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-3

ur2020154

title: This marriage has a shelf life of a banana … When in Rome review: Here is my call to arms people … go visit the Guggenheim Museum and donate money. After The International last year shooting up Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural wonder, New York City decided to get some more cash influx by allowing it to be showcased in this year's rom-com crazy flick When in Rome. This film is by no means good—at all. However, that said, I laughed a whole lot. Once you leave the plot behind and start to just let the absurd supporting characters wash over you with their eccentricities and obnoxious foibles, you'll find the smile you were looking for. I did some reconnaissance before my screening and was surprised by the multiple comments about it being one of the funniest movies the viewer had ever seen. Now, I know hyperbole when I see it, but I had the glimmer of hope that maybe I'd at least be entertained. While the beginning twenty or so minutes went by in an excruciatingly painful manner, once Josh Duhamel and magically entranced kooks entered the fray, I was able to sit back and have a good time.Where are we, though, in terms of world creativity when this plot gets green-lighted? Beth has been spurned her whole life where love is concerned, instead diving into her work as a crutch disguised as coping mechanism. Once her younger sister finds love and marriage in only two weeks, she must journey over to Rome for the wedding—while in the midst of a huge exhibit at the museum for which she is curator—to also be kicked by amore once again. This latest effort, at the hands of Duhamel's Nick, or so she thinks, leads her to pick out five coins from the fountain of love, keeping their wishes for everlasting romance in her purse. It is at this point where hilarity begins, ushering in the rogues gallery of Will Arnett, Jon Heder, Dax Shepard, and Danny DeVito to fawn over and stalk Beth back to NYC. It is both their desperately insane attempts at wooing and Nick's authentic courting hampered by clumsiness and bad luck that make this film worth watching. Admittedly, I can only watch an actor slapstick his way into light posts or down openings in the street so many times before becoming bored, but something about Duhamel's affable demeanor kept it fresh despite the repetition.The story itself really is atrocious. Just the fact that Roman mysticism and folklore is behind it all makes me roll my eyes, so feeling any sort of connection to Beth's plight is unattainable. I did, however, really like Kristen Bell in this role, and that says something coming from someone who has never been a big fan. She gives the part much more than it deserves and tries her best to let us care for her even though it is her troubles that we are enjoying. Full of clichés and gimmicks, When in Rome's setups fall flat across the board. Her job being in peril and Anjelica Huston's mean boss are predictable, watching her newlywed sister in Rome cooking naked with her new husband unoriginal, and the lame attempt at making us think that somehow the two romantic leads won't end up together in the end is pandering. But all the little things in between, the tiny adventures that could have been skits on a comic variety show excel on their own, even if they seem out of place in the story at hand. What can be out of place, though, when your four stalkers are a street magician, a vain model working on spec, a wannabe painter, and an older sausage magnate? With a mix like that, anything goes.Before getting into the big name bit parts, I want to mention a couple unknowns. Why both leads needed a sidekick with insanely wide-open eyes is beyond me. Kate Micucci is cute as Stacy, but also kind of creepy with that blank stare, while Bobby Moynihan, playing Puck, (a not so subtle nod to Shakespeare's jester), is pretty darn funny. Using "Roots" as a punchline and really just playing the goof opposite Duhamel's star-crossed lover, I hope to see more of this guy. But that's enough of the newbies; let's get onto the veterans. Each of these four suitors is completely two-dimensional, trying their best to bring some laughs while trapped in thankless, cheesy parts. DeVito is a tad overzealous going after a girl more than half his age, yet the completion of his arc worked for me, although he is the throwaway of the group. Arnett's fake Italian schtick gets old, but I can't get enough of that innocent, stupefied look whenever he does something wrong; Heder is annoying and strangely humorous in his costume alone, allowing a Napoleon Dynamite guest star be his role's finest hour; and Dax Shepard never ceases to amaze in bringing laughs with his characters' gigantic egos in everything he does.I'd like to tell director Mark Steven Johnson to stick to comic book superhero films, yet that didn't work out too well for him either. The only real thing I can fault him for here is the fact that he took on the project to begin with. There really is nothing original in the script besides some funny moments that hit hard due to the joke, not its relevance to the plot. Without an extended sequence of dining in the dark that contained the always-wonderful Kristen Schaal, a clown car gag that was much funnier than it should have been, and Keir O'Donnell's knack for playing very odd characters, I wouldn't have been able to find anything redeeming. A few effective parts cannot make up for the lackluster whole, no matter how hard I did laugh at times. I do think both Bell and Duhamel have what it takes to make a good romantic comedy together, knowing how to play the charming, romantic couple. Sadly this isn't quite it.

I never imagined a trip to Rome can be so joyless.

tt1185416

The story starts with Beth(Kristen Bell) a young curator, who's good at her job, but unlucky in love. Beth takes a little time off too attend her sisters wedding. She soon meets Nick(Josh Dumael), and she feels they are hitting it off good. But quickly gets drunk when Beth thinks he has run off with another woman. She walks in the fountain of love, and picks out some change, that gets the attention of the four different people that threw the change in, A magi can(Jon Hedder), Sausage salesman(Danny Devito) male model(Dax Shepard), Artist(Will Arnett), and maybe Nick. What is gonna come of Beths life when these different men start pursuing her? My Life In Ruins had more moments than this. Kristen Bell is always a delight, She is like Sarah Jessica Parkers younger sister, but in this film I'm sorry to say, she just did not make an impression this time. And Josh Dumael, I don't doubt that he is a good actor, but him doing comedy looked awful, he came across trying way too hard, watching him do comedy, is like watching The Three Stooges trying to do Shakespeare. And the talents of Danny Devito and Will Arnett are wasted, Not to mention Dax Shepard(who we all know in real life is Kristen Bells real life boyfriend) who usually is very funny, but here he doesn't do much. Although this movie had two funny moments, it's just so joyless.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-21

ur4593705

title: I never imagined a trip to Rome can be so joyless. review: The story starts with Beth(Kristen Bell) a young curator, who's good at her job, but unlucky in love. Beth takes a little time off too attend her sisters wedding. She soon meets Nick(Josh Dumael), and she feels they are hitting it off good. But quickly gets drunk when Beth thinks he has run off with another woman. She walks in the fountain of love, and picks out some change, that gets the attention of the four different people that threw the change in, A magi can(Jon Hedder), Sausage salesman(Danny Devito) male model(Dax Shepard), Artist(Will Arnett), and maybe Nick. What is gonna come of Beths life when these different men start pursuing her? My Life In Ruins had more moments than this. Kristen Bell is always a delight, She is like Sarah Jessica Parkers younger sister, but in this film I'm sorry to say, she just did not make an impression this time. And Josh Dumael, I don't doubt that he is a good actor, but him doing comedy looked awful, he came across trying way too hard, watching him do comedy, is like watching The Three Stooges trying to do Shakespeare. And the talents of Danny Devito and Will Arnett are wasted, Not to mention Dax Shepard(who we all know in real life is Kristen Bells real life boyfriend) who usually is very funny, but here he doesn't do much. Although this movie had two funny moments, it's just so joyless.

Interesting Twist for a Romcom

tt1185416

Beth (Bell) goes to Rome to attend her sister's wedding. Afterwards, she walks in the fountain outside the church and picks up some coins in the water. Legend says that when a coin is picked up, the person who threw the coin will fall in love with the one who picked it out of the water. She picks up 4-coins and a casino chip.This actually isn't too bad, but there were some annoying things: the singing off camera as the movie opens and more singing as we travel from NY to Rome, some sight gags really didn't work and were too commonplace (we always see the same things and are really tired of them); and some run-a-round conversations that go nowhere and are not funny as intended. The writers should key in on Seinfeld dialogues and learn from them. But, there are some very good lines in here among the players and that is where most of the comedy is. And, …………and, yes, some sight gags did work and were funny. How about that? Figure it's about 50-50 on the sight gags. Kristen Bell (looks a lot like Julie Bowen at times) and Josh Duhamel were very good together. Sometimes these comedies don't go anywhere because we do not care for the main characters, but here we do. We like Beth and Nick (Duhamel). Nothing was overdone by the rest of the cast and they performed well. Don Johnson, as Beth's father, came in from time to time and it was good to see him. He needs another show like Nash Bridges or some-such or some big time movie. Something……………So the interesting twist is that the 4-men who threw their coins in the fountain are now in the U.S. and stalk Beth to win her love. And, here goofy and silly things happen, but keep in mind, that goofy and silly things are mandatory for a Hollywood comedy. It's like a law or something. And, Beth believes Nick - also now in the US - is the one who threw the casino chip.So all in all, not bad. Can you figure out how the spell of the legend can be broken? Thought so. Me too. Violence: No. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-48

ur15857362

title: Interesting Twist for a Romcom review: Beth (Bell) goes to Rome to attend her sister's wedding. Afterwards, she walks in the fountain outside the church and picks up some coins in the water. Legend says that when a coin is picked up, the person who threw the coin will fall in love with the one who picked it out of the water. She picks up 4-coins and a casino chip.This actually isn't too bad, but there were some annoying things: the singing off camera as the movie opens and more singing as we travel from NY to Rome, some sight gags really didn't work and were too commonplace (we always see the same things and are really tired of them); and some run-a-round conversations that go nowhere and are not funny as intended. The writers should key in on Seinfeld dialogues and learn from them. But, there are some very good lines in here among the players and that is where most of the comedy is. And, …………and, yes, some sight gags did work and were funny. How about that? Figure it's about 50-50 on the sight gags. Kristen Bell (looks a lot like Julie Bowen at times) and Josh Duhamel were very good together. Sometimes these comedies don't go anywhere because we do not care for the main characters, but here we do. We like Beth and Nick (Duhamel). Nothing was overdone by the rest of the cast and they performed well. Don Johnson, as Beth's father, came in from time to time and it was good to see him. He needs another show like Nash Bridges or some-such or some big time movie. Something……………So the interesting twist is that the 4-men who threw their coins in the fountain are now in the U.S. and stalk Beth to win her love. And, here goofy and silly things happen, but keep in mind, that goofy and silly things are mandatory for a Hollywood comedy. It's like a law or something. And, Beth believes Nick - also now in the US - is the one who threw the casino chip.So all in all, not bad. Can you figure out how the spell of the legend can be broken? Thought so. Me too. Violence: No. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

They forgot the most essential element for a comedy.

tt1185416

Well, it could be me but isn't a comedy supposed to be funny? This movie just gets never funny to watch, since it's so cliché ridden and is lacking with its comedy.I just don't understand why this movie ever got made. Its script doesn't seem to have a single funny or original moment in it. Guess they tried to spice things up by adding in some psychical comedy but it just seems so very desperate all. I mean, people walking into a pole on the street or falling in a hole? Come on, how desperately lame can you get.It of course also has a quite ridicules concept, that still could had worked out well though if it had a more clever and original script to work with.It's also not really the actors fault that the movie does not work out as a comedy or good movie. As a matter of fact the movie has a pretty good cast with some talented actors, that also have shown in the past that they can handle the genre. It should say enough about this movie its script that not even they can provide the movie with any funny moments. I maybe even chuckled just once during this movie but I can't even remember at which point, it's that forgettable as a movie.I can't say that I hated watching this movie, I was just never really amused by it either. There is nothing that makes this movie a good enough movie to recommend.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-27

ur1416505

title: They forgot the most essential element for a comedy. review: Well, it could be me but isn't a comedy supposed to be funny? This movie just gets never funny to watch, since it's so cliché ridden and is lacking with its comedy.I just don't understand why this movie ever got made. Its script doesn't seem to have a single funny or original moment in it. Guess they tried to spice things up by adding in some psychical comedy but it just seems so very desperate all. I mean, people walking into a pole on the street or falling in a hole? Come on, how desperately lame can you get.It of course also has a quite ridicules concept, that still could had worked out well though if it had a more clever and original script to work with.It's also not really the actors fault that the movie does not work out as a comedy or good movie. As a matter of fact the movie has a pretty good cast with some talented actors, that also have shown in the past that they can handle the genre. It should say enough about this movie its script that not even they can provide the movie with any funny moments. I maybe even chuckled just once during this movie but I can't even remember at which point, it's that forgettable as a movie.I can't say that I hated watching this movie, I was just never really amused by it either. There is nothing that makes this movie a good enough movie to recommend.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Characters are Unlikeable and the Movie is Just Not Funny,

tt1185416

When in Rome is a brutal movie with a really stupid storyline and a good cast that sadly couldn't make up for this terrible script.We follow Kristen Bell in this movie,who I do like very much as an actress,but her character in this was just not likable at all,and that's the same for Josh Duhamel,but the most annoying characters were certainly the four men who fell in love with Bell,who were sadly played by some great comedy actors,Danny DeVito,Will Arnett and Jon Heder,but it couldn't make up for how irritating these characters were,everything that came out of their mouths was just not funny,and the reason why they fell in love with Bell is ridiculous.Unless you want to see a romantic comedy were you won't laugh or have any care for the characters whatsoever,definitely avoid When in Rome. A New Yorker is pursued by a band of infatuated suitors when she takes some coins from a fountain in Rome,but she has her eyes on someone else. Best Performance: Kristen Bell Worst Performance: Dax ShepardIf you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-86

ur23055365

title: Characters are Unlikeable and the Movie is Just Not Funny, review: When in Rome is a brutal movie with a really stupid storyline and a good cast that sadly couldn't make up for this terrible script.We follow Kristen Bell in this movie,who I do like very much as an actress,but her character in this was just not likable at all,and that's the same for Josh Duhamel,but the most annoying characters were certainly the four men who fell in love with Bell,who were sadly played by some great comedy actors,Danny DeVito,Will Arnett and Jon Heder,but it couldn't make up for how irritating these characters were,everything that came out of their mouths was just not funny,and the reason why they fell in love with Bell is ridiculous.Unless you want to see a romantic comedy were you won't laugh or have any care for the characters whatsoever,definitely avoid When in Rome. A New Yorker is pursued by a band of infatuated suitors when she takes some coins from a fountain in Rome,but she has her eyes on someone else. Best Performance: Kristen Bell Worst Performance: Dax ShepardIf you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

A Nutshell Review: When In Rome

tt1185416

I was in Rome some 6 years ago, and similar to Kristen Bell's Beth, got only 48 hours in the magnificent city, steeped in history, statues, and sights to just blow your mind away. I remembered tossing a coin into almost every fountain that I see, since it's practically monkey-see-monkey-do with coins just littered in the waters, though nope, no such luck in the amour department since I don't recall tossing one into the fountain depicted in the film. So I don't have such fictional luck like Beth, to be pursued by a number of suitors all smitten with her because she happened to pick up some coins placed in the fountain.A typical romantic comedy, this one has infused some Roman superstition into it. Returning to New York from attending her sister's wedding (and comedy of errors I might add) in the fabled city, she soon finds herself being wooed by a street magician (Jon Heder), a narcissistic male model with almost the intelligence of Derek Zoolander (Dax Shepard), a painter (Will Arnett) and a sausage magnate (Danny DeVito!) who becomes Beth's patron of her museum programme. Each do just about the craziest thing to woo their lady love, because she had happened to pick up their coin from the fountain, and they have followed their vision and calling like the plague.But of course she soon finds out that her one true love happens to be the best man at her sister's wedding, a pro-footballer turned journalist (Josh Duhamel) because of a lightning accident, but is skeptical that his advances are because of a coin she had picked up. So begins the did-he-or-didn't-he, and plenty of romantic moments weaved into the narrative written by David Diamond and David Weissman, who plays it safe with the usual structure meant to charm and basically to chronicle the number of hoops one has to jump through in order to woo one's lady love.Like a typical romance flick, this one comes with a key message as well, which is addressing how one will know if one's falling in love with someone special. And I think it hit the note, reminding us that it's when we put someone on the pedestal and they matter more than what currently matters to us most (for Beth, it's her job), then voilà, we have struck gold, or rather, Cupid has struck. So unless you see the output on this site start to dwindle...I've never quite thought that Kristen Bell would make the romantic leading lady, from films such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Couples Retreat, but she continues in the genre. Her portrayal of her characters continue to be the alpha-female type who is consistently unlucky in love, and I'm waiting for her to take on something new outside of her comfort zone in order to make everyone sit up and take notice. Until then, Josh Duhamel is someone whom I've watched transition from television's Las Vegas series to the biggest summer action blockbusters like the Transformers movie, and I think it might take a while before he branches off from action or romance, or marquee a heavyweight film on his own. The rest of the supporting cast like Anjelica Huston's chief museum curator (a poor cousin of Meryl Streep's bitchy performance in The Devil Wears Prada), Danny DeVito, Jon Heder and the rest play rather one dimensional and breezy roles in this light comedy, also because the limited runtime doesn't allow for any depth and character development. The real star of the show is of course the limited scenes of the renowned Guggenheim Museum. Last seen on screen in The International where it was badly shot up in an extended action sequence, the museum goes back to showing off its regal presence in being a place and work of art, and puts itself into my books as one of the must-go places if I happen to make my way to the Big Apple.The Roman Holiday this is not, but it has enough charming moments thanks to Rome and the Guggleheim, to make this an average but safe romantic comedy for its intended demographic to head out and enjoy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185416/reviews-30

ur0317399

title: A Nutshell Review: When In Rome review: I was in Rome some 6 years ago, and similar to Kristen Bell's Beth, got only 48 hours in the magnificent city, steeped in history, statues, and sights to just blow your mind away. I remembered tossing a coin into almost every fountain that I see, since it's practically monkey-see-monkey-do with coins just littered in the waters, though nope, no such luck in the amour department since I don't recall tossing one into the fountain depicted in the film. So I don't have such fictional luck like Beth, to be pursued by a number of suitors all smitten with her because she happened to pick up some coins placed in the fountain.A typical romantic comedy, this one has infused some Roman superstition into it. Returning to New York from attending her sister's wedding (and comedy of errors I might add) in the fabled city, she soon finds herself being wooed by a street magician (Jon Heder), a narcissistic male model with almost the intelligence of Derek Zoolander (Dax Shepard), a painter (Will Arnett) and a sausage magnate (Danny DeVito!) who becomes Beth's patron of her museum programme. Each do just about the craziest thing to woo their lady love, because she had happened to pick up their coin from the fountain, and they have followed their vision and calling like the plague.But of course she soon finds out that her one true love happens to be the best man at her sister's wedding, a pro-footballer turned journalist (Josh Duhamel) because of a lightning accident, but is skeptical that his advances are because of a coin she had picked up. So begins the did-he-or-didn't-he, and plenty of romantic moments weaved into the narrative written by David Diamond and David Weissman, who plays it safe with the usual structure meant to charm and basically to chronicle the number of hoops one has to jump through in order to woo one's lady love.Like a typical romance flick, this one comes with a key message as well, which is addressing how one will know if one's falling in love with someone special. And I think it hit the note, reminding us that it's when we put someone on the pedestal and they matter more than what currently matters to us most (for Beth, it's her job), then voilà, we have struck gold, or rather, Cupid has struck. So unless you see the output on this site start to dwindle...I've never quite thought that Kristen Bell would make the romantic leading lady, from films such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Couples Retreat, but she continues in the genre. Her portrayal of her characters continue to be the alpha-female type who is consistently unlucky in love, and I'm waiting for her to take on something new outside of her comfort zone in order to make everyone sit up and take notice. Until then, Josh Duhamel is someone whom I've watched transition from television's Las Vegas series to the biggest summer action blockbusters like the Transformers movie, and I think it might take a while before he branches off from action or romance, or marquee a heavyweight film on his own. The rest of the supporting cast like Anjelica Huston's chief museum curator (a poor cousin of Meryl Streep's bitchy performance in The Devil Wears Prada), Danny DeVito, Jon Heder and the rest play rather one dimensional and breezy roles in this light comedy, also because the limited runtime doesn't allow for any depth and character development. The real star of the show is of course the limited scenes of the renowned Guggenheim Museum. Last seen on screen in The International where it was badly shot up in an extended action sequence, the museum goes back to showing off its regal presence in being a place and work of art, and puts itself into my books as one of the must-go places if I happen to make my way to the Big Apple.The Roman Holiday this is not, but it has enough charming moments thanks to Rome and the Guggleheim, to make this an average but safe romantic comedy for its intended demographic to head out and enjoy.

That's when I knew she was Contending......

tt0208874

The vice-president of the United States has passed away, and it's up to President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges, nominated for an Oscar here) to choose his successor. When the vice-president dies or is otherwise unable to serve his office, the president picks someone to replace him, and that person is then confirmed by a Congressional committee. Kind of like the confirmation hearings for secretary of state, secretary of agriculture, secretary of commerce, and so on. The frontrunner for the position here is Governor Jack Hathaway (William L. Petersen), a nice guy/career politico who is viewed as a hero by many when he dives into a lake in an attempt to save a young girl from drowning when her car goes over a bridge. The girl dies, but Hathaway's popularity increases due to the "hero" factor. However, President Evans and Kermit Newman (Sam Elliott), his counsel, don't want "another Chappaquiddick," so they take the governor off the list.They instead turn to Laine Hanson (Joan Allen, nominated for Best Actress), but when they announce Laine as the president's choice, a secret from her past comes to the surface. It's widely reported on the Internet that Laine engaged in sexual misconduct during her early years at Harvard University. Laine does not confirm or deny the charges; she steadfastly refuses to comment on them.The thing about politicians and their images is that we Americans care less about such scandals as stocks, money laundering, and mild bribery than we do about sex scandals. Nothing kills a campaign or hopes of a career in Washington faster than a sex scandal, and it's even worse when the politician is female.Laine consistently refuses to discuss the charges, either with the president, his counsel, the press, or, most importantly, the committee running the confirmation hearings. These hearings are chaired by Shelley Runyon (Gary Oldman, almost unrecognizable but brilliant), who wants to make the president's term end on a bad note, to make sure his place in history isn't a noble one. Runyon runs the hearings like, as his wife puts it, sort of a low-rent Joe McCarthy. Of course, during these kinds of hearings, anything goes - most of all, private lives.Hanson sticks to her story. I won't give anything else away here, but I will tell you that this is a story or principles and dignity. It is a tale of honor among thieves, to be precise; for who among us feels that there is an overwhelming amount of honor among politicians? Hanson's mantra throughout the proceedings is "It is beneath my dignity to answer those charges." This is unheard of in real life. In real life, we'd want her to answer for herself. Well, Laine doesn't want to answer for herself. So it's a stalemate. Everyone wants to know if the charges are true for two reasons: for the purpose of knowing whether the good Senator Hanson is worthy of the office of the vice-president and for their own sexual curiosity. Could she have done those things? Praise should be heaped on the participants in this treat. What a cast! Bridges is tough and feisty as the president, and Allen is simply amazing as Hanson. Christian Slater has a telling role as a junior senator on the confirmation committee, but he's not terribly good. But Elliot's wonderful, as is Petersen.I would not be surprised if Joan Allen were to win the Best Actress Oscar this year. This is her third nomination, following Nixon (1995) and The Crucible (1996). Bridges has a good chance, too; this is his fourth nomination, following Starman (1984), Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), and The Last Picture Show (1971).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-112

ur0543054

title: That's when I knew she was Contending...... review: The vice-president of the United States has passed away, and it's up to President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges, nominated for an Oscar here) to choose his successor. When the vice-president dies or is otherwise unable to serve his office, the president picks someone to replace him, and that person is then confirmed by a Congressional committee. Kind of like the confirmation hearings for secretary of state, secretary of agriculture, secretary of commerce, and so on. The frontrunner for the position here is Governor Jack Hathaway (William L. Petersen), a nice guy/career politico who is viewed as a hero by many when he dives into a lake in an attempt to save a young girl from drowning when her car goes over a bridge. The girl dies, but Hathaway's popularity increases due to the "hero" factor. However, President Evans and Kermit Newman (Sam Elliott), his counsel, don't want "another Chappaquiddick," so they take the governor off the list.They instead turn to Laine Hanson (Joan Allen, nominated for Best Actress), but when they announce Laine as the president's choice, a secret from her past comes to the surface. It's widely reported on the Internet that Laine engaged in sexual misconduct during her early years at Harvard University. Laine does not confirm or deny the charges; she steadfastly refuses to comment on them.The thing about politicians and their images is that we Americans care less about such scandals as stocks, money laundering, and mild bribery than we do about sex scandals. Nothing kills a campaign or hopes of a career in Washington faster than a sex scandal, and it's even worse when the politician is female.Laine consistently refuses to discuss the charges, either with the president, his counsel, the press, or, most importantly, the committee running the confirmation hearings. These hearings are chaired by Shelley Runyon (Gary Oldman, almost unrecognizable but brilliant), who wants to make the president's term end on a bad note, to make sure his place in history isn't a noble one. Runyon runs the hearings like, as his wife puts it, sort of a low-rent Joe McCarthy. Of course, during these kinds of hearings, anything goes - most of all, private lives.Hanson sticks to her story. I won't give anything else away here, but I will tell you that this is a story or principles and dignity. It is a tale of honor among thieves, to be precise; for who among us feels that there is an overwhelming amount of honor among politicians? Hanson's mantra throughout the proceedings is "It is beneath my dignity to answer those charges." This is unheard of in real life. In real life, we'd want her to answer for herself. Well, Laine doesn't want to answer for herself. So it's a stalemate. Everyone wants to know if the charges are true for two reasons: for the purpose of knowing whether the good Senator Hanson is worthy of the office of the vice-president and for their own sexual curiosity. Could she have done those things? Praise should be heaped on the participants in this treat. What a cast! Bridges is tough and feisty as the president, and Allen is simply amazing as Hanson. Christian Slater has a telling role as a junior senator on the confirmation committee, but he's not terribly good. But Elliot's wonderful, as is Petersen.I would not be surprised if Joan Allen were to win the Best Actress Oscar this year. This is her third nomination, following Nixon (1995) and The Crucible (1996). Bridges has a good chance, too; this is his fourth nomination, following Starman (1984), Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), and The Last Picture Show (1971).

Rather spoilt by an outburst of sentiment

tt0208874

Bleeding heart American liberals will probably love this film, while Yanks more disposed to neo-con values will probably hate it. Being neither (and not even an American), I feel that this works rather well as a film, but — for me — is spoilt by the huge dollops of American treacle poured over it in the final scenes. The 10/10 marks given here by other — probably bleeding heart liberal — reviewers baffle me. First, NO film should get 10/10, in order to leave that mark for some future work so extraordinarily good that it leaves everything else in the shade. Second, I suspect that top mark owes rather more to applauding the sentiments emoted by the film than the quality of the film itself. But that quality is good. I think Jeff Bridges always gives a good performances and seems to choose those parts which allow him to give a good performance. Sam Elliot as the ultra-pragmatic foul-mouthed chief-of-staff is also hugely watchable, as is the quiet dignity of Joan Allen, the vice-presidential nominee with possible a dark secret. Our very own British Gary Oldman gives equal good value for money as the committee chairman in whom principle shades off into almost pure malice. Tension is also well-sustained to the end, with a plot that has sufficient twists and turns. Some failings of the film would include the rookie and principled Congressman portrayed by Christian Slater who gets himself appointed to the congressional committee ratifying Allen's nomination even though he has no experience — the justification for his appointment is never explained and Slater has no organic role in the plot at all. What is he there for other than to symbolise that 'our young are our future' or some such guff? And just why is Oldman (committee chairman Sheldon Runyon) so against Allen? These are, though, minor quibbles, and in many ways the more petty the gripes, the better the film. But the film's sentiment... I know that the U.S. provides by far the biggest market for Hollywood and is thus the market Hollywood tries to satisfy, but please spare a thought for the rest of us non-Americans who don't — and cannot even be expected to — share in the sentimental fiction that is the U.S. soul. (And I am, of course, bound to admit that all other nations, including the Brits, have such national fictions. We, for example, still fondly regard ourselves as 'a nation of seafarers'; the French are convinced that every last man, woman and dog is 'an intellectual'.) The U.S. fiction, as promulgated in The Contender, is that America is the home of ultimate truth, decency, honesty and freedom (achievable, of course, once all the bad Yanks out there, like Governor Hathaway, who tried to rig his own act of heroism, have been overcome and brought to book.) Now, admittedly, The Contender was made in 2000, but Guantanamo Boy, Abu Ghraib, the whole Iraq fiasco, various acts of massacre, but also the Vietnam War etc do rather spoil the 'home of the brave' etc act. In fact, they make it seem like a joke in poor taste. But, as I say, that is no criticism of the film as a film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-359

ur4308028

title: Rather spoilt by an outburst of sentiment review: Bleeding heart American liberals will probably love this film, while Yanks more disposed to neo-con values will probably hate it. Being neither (and not even an American), I feel that this works rather well as a film, but — for me — is spoilt by the huge dollops of American treacle poured over it in the final scenes. The 10/10 marks given here by other — probably bleeding heart liberal — reviewers baffle me. First, NO film should get 10/10, in order to leave that mark for some future work so extraordinarily good that it leaves everything else in the shade. Second, I suspect that top mark owes rather more to applauding the sentiments emoted by the film than the quality of the film itself. But that quality is good. I think Jeff Bridges always gives a good performances and seems to choose those parts which allow him to give a good performance. Sam Elliot as the ultra-pragmatic foul-mouthed chief-of-staff is also hugely watchable, as is the quiet dignity of Joan Allen, the vice-presidential nominee with possible a dark secret. Our very own British Gary Oldman gives equal good value for money as the committee chairman in whom principle shades off into almost pure malice. Tension is also well-sustained to the end, with a plot that has sufficient twists and turns. Some failings of the film would include the rookie and principled Congressman portrayed by Christian Slater who gets himself appointed to the congressional committee ratifying Allen's nomination even though he has no experience — the justification for his appointment is never explained and Slater has no organic role in the plot at all. What is he there for other than to symbolise that 'our young are our future' or some such guff? And just why is Oldman (committee chairman Sheldon Runyon) so against Allen? These are, though, minor quibbles, and in many ways the more petty the gripes, the better the film. But the film's sentiment... I know that the U.S. provides by far the biggest market for Hollywood and is thus the market Hollywood tries to satisfy, but please spare a thought for the rest of us non-Americans who don't — and cannot even be expected to — share in the sentimental fiction that is the U.S. soul. (And I am, of course, bound to admit that all other nations, including the Brits, have such national fictions. We, for example, still fondly regard ourselves as 'a nation of seafarers'; the French are convinced that every last man, woman and dog is 'an intellectual'.) The U.S. fiction, as promulgated in The Contender, is that America is the home of ultimate truth, decency, honesty and freedom (achievable, of course, once all the bad Yanks out there, like Governor Hathaway, who tried to rig his own act of heroism, have been overcome and brought to book.) Now, admittedly, The Contender was made in 2000, but Guantanamo Boy, Abu Ghraib, the whole Iraq fiasco, various acts of massacre, but also the Vietnam War etc do rather spoil the 'home of the brave' etc act. In fact, they make it seem like a joke in poor taste. But, as I say, that is no criticism of the film as a film.

Let's get real here...

tt0208874

To be fair, this film is very entertaining and while I won't take anything away from that aspect of it, some of the comments on here are ridiculously pathetic! "The Contender" is a well-acted, well-written political drama that is so full of bias, we might as well poke your eyes out if you can't see it. Laine Hanson is an ex-Republican-turned-Democrat (with THOSE kind of communist ideals!?) whom, in light of the Vice President's death, is being nominated to take his spot. Of course, we have an evil Republican regime that stands in her way and spits on her very existence mercilessly. In one scene, Hanson says "I stand for taking every gun out of every home, period..." Scary! (That's the first thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany, by the way.)Played by Gary Oldman, who is certainly a fine actor, Sheldon B. Runyan is Republican head of a committee that must approve the nomination. He represents everything that left-wing Hollywood wants to believe the right wing stand for. It's hogwash. He screams from his soapbox in one scene about how abortion is nothing less than a "holocaust of the unborn..." Jeff Bridges plays the President and does a damn fine job of it.The highlight of the film for me though is Sam Elliott's portrayal of Kermit who seems to be the ONLY truly realistic character in the movie. That guy is tough as nails.In short, very fun movie but so politically biased and charged it makes your head spin. Interesting how things have changed since this film was made. This film relishes and bathes in the socialist ideals of the Democratic 1990's, a decade that is definitely gone. And I, for one, am happy about that. Watch this one with a grain of salt.5 out of 10, kids.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-371

ur17816817

title: Let's get real here... review: To be fair, this film is very entertaining and while I won't take anything away from that aspect of it, some of the comments on here are ridiculously pathetic! "The Contender" is a well-acted, well-written political drama that is so full of bias, we might as well poke your eyes out if you can't see it. Laine Hanson is an ex-Republican-turned-Democrat (with THOSE kind of communist ideals!?) whom, in light of the Vice President's death, is being nominated to take his spot. Of course, we have an evil Republican regime that stands in her way and spits on her very existence mercilessly. In one scene, Hanson says "I stand for taking every gun out of every home, period..." Scary! (That's the first thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany, by the way.)Played by Gary Oldman, who is certainly a fine actor, Sheldon B. Runyan is Republican head of a committee that must approve the nomination. He represents everything that left-wing Hollywood wants to believe the right wing stand for. It's hogwash. He screams from his soapbox in one scene about how abortion is nothing less than a "holocaust of the unborn..." Jeff Bridges plays the President and does a damn fine job of it.The highlight of the film for me though is Sam Elliott's portrayal of Kermit who seems to be the ONLY truly realistic character in the movie. That guy is tough as nails.In short, very fun movie but so politically biased and charged it makes your head spin. Interesting how things have changed since this film was made. This film relishes and bathes in the socialist ideals of the Democratic 1990's, a decade that is definitely gone. And I, for one, am happy about that. Watch this one with a grain of salt.5 out of 10, kids.

Good Cast, but pedantic writing, preachy

tt0208874

This movie suffers from preachy and pedantic writing. Not to say its a bad movie, but it drags on with an uninteresting premise about tolerated double-standards in sexuality, and a wide-range of political showiness with the all-too common orchestra dubbed in the background screaming - this is PATRIOTIC. It felt like a bad clichéd sitcom. However, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman are fun to watch, and especially Oldman here who always shines in his roles, and knows his character's places. Here Oldman is snide and conniving. Allen is sort of stoic through most of the movie, hardly affording any emotion and not engaging because of that,due more to poor direction/writing. Unfortunately The drawn out speeches got wearisome, and the finale scene was a big cave-in. The movie started out so well too, before it got into a lot of the political blahness. The better political movies out there paint heart/virtue rather than talking about it through dialogue/speeches/conversations. And the continued beating of a disgustingly dead-horse of sexuality and privacy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-361

ur0635312

title: Good Cast, but pedantic writing, preachy review: This movie suffers from preachy and pedantic writing. Not to say its a bad movie, but it drags on with an uninteresting premise about tolerated double-standards in sexuality, and a wide-range of political showiness with the all-too common orchestra dubbed in the background screaming - this is PATRIOTIC. It felt like a bad clichéd sitcom. However, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman are fun to watch, and especially Oldman here who always shines in his roles, and knows his character's places. Here Oldman is snide and conniving. Allen is sort of stoic through most of the movie, hardly affording any emotion and not engaging because of that,due more to poor direction/writing. Unfortunately The drawn out speeches got wearisome, and the finale scene was a big cave-in. The movie started out so well too, before it got into a lot of the political blahness. The better political movies out there paint heart/virtue rather than talking about it through dialogue/speeches/conversations. And the continued beating of a disgustingly dead-horse of sexuality and privacy.

Great writing, some ups and downs in plausibility but overall an inside view worth viewing

tt0208874

The Contender (2000)This is an intensely focused political drama that tires, rather well, to show how the insides of the top of American politics works. At stake is a woman is has been nominated for confirmation as Vice-President of the U.S. But she has an enormous amount of baggage —not just liberal politics, but some sexual escapades as a college student and an affair with a friend's husband. So the hearings go afoul.What makes this click is the writing. It's sharp, surprisingly astute, and sometimes scary for its believable bitterness. Now this doesn't necessarily make this a commanding movie —there are endless inner sanctum meetings and one-on-one power plays—but if you like this kind of thing, it's impressive enough to stick it out. It's an irony that the ostensible main character, the woman in line to be VP, is relatively weak, played by Joan Allen. (Imagine a real politician, like Hilary or Barbara Boxer in the role instead.) She has all the right lines but she lacks a sense of power that she surely would have if about to be number 2. Around her are powerful men, including two actors who are really strong—Gary Oldman as an opposing Republican and Jeff Bridges as the President. So the swirling conversations around these issues are driven and pointed. It's good stuff. The writer, Rod Lurie, happens to also be the director, and he does a creditable if not masterful job.One of the flaws here is the basic premise that this woman would have had such scandal (in political terms) and gotten as far as senator. There are photographs of the one event (the details shift as the plots goes on, however) and television footage implying her affair. These are made plain and obvious beyond normal norms to make a point—the women are held to a different standard than men. But I'm not sure—if there were supposed photographs of a man having a wild sex romp as a college kid, they would probably derail the man's career as well. I'm not saying they should—not for a man or a woman—but that's the reality.Anyway, the issues are given a fair shake and an uneven treatment with great perception. Never mind the soaring music a times, the acting and writing win the day. They makes it all worthwhile.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-403

ur20961309

title: Great writing, some ups and downs in plausibility but overall an inside view worth viewing review: The Contender (2000)This is an intensely focused political drama that tires, rather well, to show how the insides of the top of American politics works. At stake is a woman is has been nominated for confirmation as Vice-President of the U.S. But she has an enormous amount of baggage —not just liberal politics, but some sexual escapades as a college student and an affair with a friend's husband. So the hearings go afoul.What makes this click is the writing. It's sharp, surprisingly astute, and sometimes scary for its believable bitterness. Now this doesn't necessarily make this a commanding movie —there are endless inner sanctum meetings and one-on-one power plays—but if you like this kind of thing, it's impressive enough to stick it out. It's an irony that the ostensible main character, the woman in line to be VP, is relatively weak, played by Joan Allen. (Imagine a real politician, like Hilary or Barbara Boxer in the role instead.) She has all the right lines but she lacks a sense of power that she surely would have if about to be number 2. Around her are powerful men, including two actors who are really strong—Gary Oldman as an opposing Republican and Jeff Bridges as the President. So the swirling conversations around these issues are driven and pointed. It's good stuff. The writer, Rod Lurie, happens to also be the director, and he does a creditable if not masterful job.One of the flaws here is the basic premise that this woman would have had such scandal (in political terms) and gotten as far as senator. There are photographs of the one event (the details shift as the plots goes on, however) and television footage implying her affair. These are made plain and obvious beyond normal norms to make a point—the women are held to a different standard than men. But I'm not sure—if there were supposed photographs of a man having a wild sex romp as a college kid, they would probably derail the man's career as well. I'm not saying they should—not for a man or a woman—but that's the reality.Anyway, the issues are given a fair shake and an uneven treatment with great perception. Never mind the soaring music a times, the acting and writing win the day. They makes it all worthwhile.

Entertaining Political Drama

tt0208874

I am not a fan of political dramas, they usually bore me to death. This is a huge exception. From beginning to end, the story is absolutely riveting. A popular governor is fishing in a boat under a bridge when a car crashes into the water. He jumps in to try to rescue a young woman, but she drowns. He becomes a media darling at a time when the White House is seeking a new Vice President. Jeff Bridges plays the President and he tells the guy that the American public will be reminded of the Ted Kennedy incident because the girl died. He then nominates Senator Hansen(Joan Allen) for the office as the first woman VP. He hopes it will be his legacy.The dirty tricks occur quickly, as some old photos turn up of Senator Hansen from her college days. She is in a sexually compromising position with two guys at a party. Of course the material is leaked to the press and the hearings become a circus. Gary Oldman is is unrecognizable as the backstabbing chair of the judicial panel questioning the Senator about her past. Bridges, Allen, and Oldman are perfectly cast and the script is smart and believable. Slightly overlong at a little over two hours, but still worth watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-394

ur14295241

title: Entertaining Political Drama review: I am not a fan of political dramas, they usually bore me to death. This is a huge exception. From beginning to end, the story is absolutely riveting. A popular governor is fishing in a boat under a bridge when a car crashes into the water. He jumps in to try to rescue a young woman, but she drowns. He becomes a media darling at a time when the White House is seeking a new Vice President. Jeff Bridges plays the President and he tells the guy that the American public will be reminded of the Ted Kennedy incident because the girl died. He then nominates Senator Hansen(Joan Allen) for the office as the first woman VP. He hopes it will be his legacy.The dirty tricks occur quickly, as some old photos turn up of Senator Hansen from her college days. She is in a sexually compromising position with two guys at a party. Of course the material is leaked to the press and the hearings become a circus. Gary Oldman is is unrecognizable as the backstabbing chair of the judicial panel questioning the Senator about her past. Bridges, Allen, and Oldman are perfectly cast and the script is smart and believable. Slightly overlong at a little over two hours, but still worth watching.

Enjoyable political movie.

tt0208874

"The Contender" is an enjoyable political movie that examines the politics of innuendo and trial by media. Joan Allen was very good in her role and it is nice to see her finally recognized as a leading actor. She was great as Pat Nixon in "Nixon". Gary Oldman was also very good. It was nice to see Sam Elliott as something other than a cowboy. The movie wasn't perfect. I thought the swelling background music during certain soliloquies was too much. Why not let the words stand by themselves? Joan Allen's Senator's stated stand on various topics during one speech was also too much. No modern politician would make such bold, straight forward statements. The sentiments could be applauded but the speech was not believable. Unfortunately those opinions are expressed only by actors in movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-125

ur0608898

title: Enjoyable political movie. review: "The Contender" is an enjoyable political movie that examines the politics of innuendo and trial by media. Joan Allen was very good in her role and it is nice to see her finally recognized as a leading actor. She was great as Pat Nixon in "Nixon". Gary Oldman was also very good. It was nice to see Sam Elliott as something other than a cowboy. The movie wasn't perfect. I thought the swelling background music during certain soliloquies was too much. Why not let the words stand by themselves? Joan Allen's Senator's stated stand on various topics during one speech was also too much. No modern politician would make such bold, straight forward statements. The sentiments could be applauded but the speech was not believable. Unfortunately those opinions are expressed only by actors in movies.

Brilliant Clinton/Starr parallel drama

tt0208874

A superbly handled, scripted and, above all, acted drama. The story of a moral furore over the election of a replacement Vice President, leaked and stoked for political purposes, resonates with the moral dissolution that marked the end of Clinton's period of office.IMDb notes that director Lurie prepared the part of Laine Hanson specially for Joan Allen and it shows: I haven't seen Erin Brokovich at this time of writing but I will now given that Julia Roberts' performance denied Allen a best actress Oscar. Jeff Bridges plays the controversial President role as far as it will go, with whimsy but also a decorously maintained competence. In fact that chief political characteristic of concealing character and intentions is the overriding theme of the film, also exhibited by the fantastically irascible Gary Oldman. A rather obvious but no less gripping political street thug, Shelly Runyon wants to parachute his own (Republican) man into the vacant position. A furious battle of accountability vs privacy ensues.It's a gripping tug of war between Runyon and Hanson with a first class supporting cast, the like of which would be familiar to initiates of The West Wing's ensemble. There's a surprising if saccharine twist to boot. 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-372

ur2206551

title: Brilliant Clinton/Starr parallel drama review: A superbly handled, scripted and, above all, acted drama. The story of a moral furore over the election of a replacement Vice President, leaked and stoked for political purposes, resonates with the moral dissolution that marked the end of Clinton's period of office.IMDb notes that director Lurie prepared the part of Laine Hanson specially for Joan Allen and it shows: I haven't seen Erin Brokovich at this time of writing but I will now given that Julia Roberts' performance denied Allen a best actress Oscar. Jeff Bridges plays the controversial President role as far as it will go, with whimsy but also a decorously maintained competence. In fact that chief political characteristic of concealing character and intentions is the overriding theme of the film, also exhibited by the fantastically irascible Gary Oldman. A rather obvious but no less gripping political street thug, Shelly Runyon wants to parachute his own (Republican) man into the vacant position. A furious battle of accountability vs privacy ensues.It's a gripping tug of war between Runyon and Hanson with a first class supporting cast, the like of which would be familiar to initiates of The West Wing's ensemble. There's a surprising if saccharine twist to boot. 8/10

Knocked out, in round four...

tt0208874

The Contender, was well cast, and equipped with a 'iron clad' index of 'character' 'supporting' and 'lead' actors. Four rounds it would go from intro to the epilogue. For the first thought that comes to mind every time I think of this film, is Jeff Bridges. He is absolutely, an under-ranked and I think under-appreciated actor. He was Presidential, as President Evans. He exuded charisma, power and a solid stature. He was the most believable for a presidential character of almost every film, with a president in the storyline. You would think thats' just how it has to be, his actions and the way he spoke and carried his role was and is inspirational to me.On the second point, Gary Oldman is a mastering and wise 'player' in his acting and in this as Sheldon "Shelly" Runyon a D.C. political investigator. Oldman is very diverse, from what he has played in his ever-widening past and present resume, he is an award winner. He adds a broadness to just about anything he is in. It would have to be very energizing to work with him in a directorial capacity, I would imagine. Joan Allen as senator Laine Hanson. Looking for appointment but with a blemish on her past. Joan was satisfying as the good or not-so-good senator, I think she has played several things pretty well, this I think was the second best of all five, that are my top end favorites of hers'. And good Ole Sam Elliot as Kermit Newman, in the Oval-office . The president's man. Inside the inner circle of power, a real adviser/decision maker. Sam is a cowboy's cowboy. should have had the chance to play opposite of John Wayne. He is a great hard case! He is even a great good guy depending, but I kind of like him more with an 'edgier' appointment. It's just more depth when he is playing the offensive. Then there is the story about this sweet woman that is going to be appointed, but has this mark on her past, and through the investigation, she and her hubby William Hanson (Robin Thomas) are basically put through a political nightmare as they and the country look her over. Out of the story though, through the investigation that Rep. Sheldon Runyon (Oldman) is underway with, I enjoyed her small meet with her father, Mr Billings, Oscar (Phillip Baker Hall) there's another dry and smart personality for the story to add some needed spice. But in the final epilogue of the story, the place along the lines of Gov. Jack Hathaway attempting to play 'Hero' and getting caught, to the investigation with Mr. Runyon losing steam, that it all kind of just crash landed skidding to a halt! I had lost interest at that point and others that had seen the movie were making remarks on the way out. It was a good story that was shown and shot well, but lacked a certain sustaining climactic subtext and closing. They needed to change the ending! There should have been at least one more remaining scandal with Hanson that was not found or a skeleton that could be there for later, but it just went 'f-whop!' I gave this a six out of ten due to the characters like Bridges, Oldman, Slater, Elliot, and how this was shot. Very impressive, but just seemed to finished out thin. (**)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-357

ur7529200

title: Knocked out, in round four... review: The Contender, was well cast, and equipped with a 'iron clad' index of 'character' 'supporting' and 'lead' actors. Four rounds it would go from intro to the epilogue. For the first thought that comes to mind every time I think of this film, is Jeff Bridges. He is absolutely, an under-ranked and I think under-appreciated actor. He was Presidential, as President Evans. He exuded charisma, power and a solid stature. He was the most believable for a presidential character of almost every film, with a president in the storyline. You would think thats' just how it has to be, his actions and the way he spoke and carried his role was and is inspirational to me.On the second point, Gary Oldman is a mastering and wise 'player' in his acting and in this as Sheldon "Shelly" Runyon a D.C. political investigator. Oldman is very diverse, from what he has played in his ever-widening past and present resume, he is an award winner. He adds a broadness to just about anything he is in. It would have to be very energizing to work with him in a directorial capacity, I would imagine. Joan Allen as senator Laine Hanson. Looking for appointment but with a blemish on her past. Joan was satisfying as the good or not-so-good senator, I think she has played several things pretty well, this I think was the second best of all five, that are my top end favorites of hers'. And good Ole Sam Elliot as Kermit Newman, in the Oval-office . The president's man. Inside the inner circle of power, a real adviser/decision maker. Sam is a cowboy's cowboy. should have had the chance to play opposite of John Wayne. He is a great hard case! He is even a great good guy depending, but I kind of like him more with an 'edgier' appointment. It's just more depth when he is playing the offensive. Then there is the story about this sweet woman that is going to be appointed, but has this mark on her past, and through the investigation, she and her hubby William Hanson (Robin Thomas) are basically put through a political nightmare as they and the country look her over. Out of the story though, through the investigation that Rep. Sheldon Runyon (Oldman) is underway with, I enjoyed her small meet with her father, Mr Billings, Oscar (Phillip Baker Hall) there's another dry and smart personality for the story to add some needed spice. But in the final epilogue of the story, the place along the lines of Gov. Jack Hathaway attempting to play 'Hero' and getting caught, to the investigation with Mr. Runyon losing steam, that it all kind of just crash landed skidding to a halt! I had lost interest at that point and others that had seen the movie were making remarks on the way out. It was a good story that was shown and shot well, but lacked a certain sustaining climactic subtext and closing. They needed to change the ending! There should have been at least one more remaining scandal with Hanson that was not found or a skeleton that could be there for later, but it just went 'f-whop!' I gave this a six out of ten due to the characters like Bridges, Oldman, Slater, Elliot, and how this was shot. Very impressive, but just seemed to finished out thin. (**)

Very Well-Acted!

tt0208874

Please do not throw in the towel. Yes! I know you have seen some crappy acted films so far this year. But let me tell you about the latest contender in my list which ironically enough is called `The Contender.' This one is about a woman vice-president nominee who must fight for her nomination because of a scandalous past sexual episode. I do have to give a thumps up to former film critic Rod Lurie for his intensive and crafty style of directing. However, what makes this one a winner in all 50 states was the supreme acting of its 3 main characters. Joan Allen was definitely no "gore" as the Vice President nominee who most probably will also be a Best Actress Oscar nominee. Jeff Bridges was very charismatic as the President, and best of all he did not have sexual relations with that woman ( Sorry! Wrong President!) However, it was Gary Oldman's ageless performance as the devious congressman that represents itself well as one of the best of the year. I definitively do cast a favorable vote to `The Contender.' **** Good

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-48

ur0489763

title: Very Well-Acted! review: Please do not throw in the towel. Yes! I know you have seen some crappy acted films so far this year. But let me tell you about the latest contender in my list which ironically enough is called `The Contender.' This one is about a woman vice-president nominee who must fight for her nomination because of a scandalous past sexual episode. I do have to give a thumps up to former film critic Rod Lurie for his intensive and crafty style of directing. However, what makes this one a winner in all 50 states was the supreme acting of its 3 main characters. Joan Allen was definitely no "gore" as the Vice President nominee who most probably will also be a Best Actress Oscar nominee. Jeff Bridges was very charismatic as the President, and best of all he did not have sexual relations with that woman ( Sorry! Wrong President!) However, it was Gary Oldman's ageless performance as the devious congressman that represents itself well as one of the best of the year. I definitively do cast a favorable vote to `The Contender.' **** Good

Wishful Hollywood thinking about politics...

tt0208874

I'm sure Hollywood would like to have us believe that scandal plagued atheists women could easily succeed in American politics. But they have this movie, based on someone THEY'D like to see, I guess what they hoped Clinton would be, but always left them disappointed.This movie has some really good performances in it, but the characters are to political science what an action movie is to the laws of physics. First, no one would make that big of a production out of the nomination of a Vice President due to a vacancy. It wasn't even a big deal in the middle of Watergate, when you had to fill the job twice under the mechanism of the 25th Amendment.The whole notion is that this nomination is important because the next VP would be the next president. Even though sitting Vice Presidents have only been elected TWICE to the presidency in the whole history of the country. Yup, that was going to smooth the way for an atheist, gun grabbing liberal to get the presidency.(And before anyone asks, I'm neither left nor right. Let's be honest here, even Obama has to pretend to believe in Capitalism and Talking Snakes.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-389

ur5348015

title: Wishful Hollywood thinking about politics... review: I'm sure Hollywood would like to have us believe that scandal plagued atheists women could easily succeed in American politics. But they have this movie, based on someone THEY'D like to see, I guess what they hoped Clinton would be, but always left them disappointed.This movie has some really good performances in it, but the characters are to political science what an action movie is to the laws of physics. First, no one would make that big of a production out of the nomination of a Vice President due to a vacancy. It wasn't even a big deal in the middle of Watergate, when you had to fill the job twice under the mechanism of the 25th Amendment.The whole notion is that this nomination is important because the next VP would be the next president. Even though sitting Vice Presidents have only been elected TWICE to the presidency in the whole history of the country. Yup, that was going to smooth the way for an atheist, gun grabbing liberal to get the presidency.(And before anyone asks, I'm neither left nor right. Let's be honest here, even Obama has to pretend to believe in Capitalism and Talking Snakes.)

History can be slowed down but never stopped

tt0208874

Rush to your DVD store and get this film at once. It is a duty, a must, a compulsory mandatory obligation for any free citizen in this world to watch this film, at least twice to recognize the mugs and the characters and understand all the allusions. Launched in 2000 to prepare Al Gore's presidency, it came too early because Russia is not the only country where elections are manipulated to paint up the result some want though they have no right to get it. The film is perfect in the present situation if you believe in democracy, the Shrine of Democracy in Mount Rushmore that any political assembly, caucus, council, committee must – not should, I said must – be in a democratic country. If you believe in the right for every and each citizen to decide on their private life and use of their brains and bodies. And it is time, high time this country finally democratically decides to entrust supreme power to those who are not and don't want to be only men, white if possible and by necessity, who do not accept to harbor guns and weapons in their homes, or to negate the rights for women to do what they want with their life and body. Those who do not want women to be negated the right to choose. And above all those who consider private life to be just that, private, and who oppose those who are always looking for perverted and perverse private events, made up and invented if necessary, to discredit those they don't like. It is high time the victims of that insistent and permanent, still true and alive, discrimination against more than half the population of the USA comes to an end. And for the first time in US history, Time magazine saw what some possible roads to freedom could be and put up on the front page of a recent issue Obama's picture with the title of this very film, The Contender, across the page. Let me congratulate Ted Turner and his successors. Yes it is time for a woman and a Black to become the hope and future of this country in which we are so proud to believe in spite of all the imperialistic reflexes some of its leaders develop as if it were their second nature, or maybe even their first nature. It is well known Washington did cut the cherry tree and did not tell a lie about it, even before he did it. That is not true of everyone indeed, and some are definitely both guilty and irresponsible in front of human history. Let's hope all the fundamentalists, from the communistic, anarchistic or just old-fashioned Trotskyite left to the authoritarian, militaristic or plainly conservative right will be pushed aside and the reasonable who know life is a constant creation through work, learning, exchanging knowledge and goods, experience and expertise, and many other creative elements. In our societies some dead individuals were neglected and overlooked when burying time had come and they are still roaming around among us the living, un-dead as they are and be sure dead and un-alive un-dead they are. That's all the bad future I am dreaming humanity will offer themselves in the next few years, in the USA or in China, or in Europe, democracy in our homes and gardens and public squares. But remember a Shrine of Democracy has to be built in every home, in every school, in every village, in every neighborhood, and that will take more time and courage from everyone of us than just bouncing up and down in our seats and banging over and over again our hands on the tables, humming and repeating "Red Alert! Red Alert!" like some jackrabbits in a cabbage patch.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-365

ur3836774

title: History can be slowed down but never stopped review: Rush to your DVD store and get this film at once. It is a duty, a must, a compulsory mandatory obligation for any free citizen in this world to watch this film, at least twice to recognize the mugs and the characters and understand all the allusions. Launched in 2000 to prepare Al Gore's presidency, it came too early because Russia is not the only country where elections are manipulated to paint up the result some want though they have no right to get it. The film is perfect in the present situation if you believe in democracy, the Shrine of Democracy in Mount Rushmore that any political assembly, caucus, council, committee must – not should, I said must – be in a democratic country. If you believe in the right for every and each citizen to decide on their private life and use of their brains and bodies. And it is time, high time this country finally democratically decides to entrust supreme power to those who are not and don't want to be only men, white if possible and by necessity, who do not accept to harbor guns and weapons in their homes, or to negate the rights for women to do what they want with their life and body. Those who do not want women to be negated the right to choose. And above all those who consider private life to be just that, private, and who oppose those who are always looking for perverted and perverse private events, made up and invented if necessary, to discredit those they don't like. It is high time the victims of that insistent and permanent, still true and alive, discrimination against more than half the population of the USA comes to an end. And for the first time in US history, Time magazine saw what some possible roads to freedom could be and put up on the front page of a recent issue Obama's picture with the title of this very film, The Contender, across the page. Let me congratulate Ted Turner and his successors. Yes it is time for a woman and a Black to become the hope and future of this country in which we are so proud to believe in spite of all the imperialistic reflexes some of its leaders develop as if it were their second nature, or maybe even their first nature. It is well known Washington did cut the cherry tree and did not tell a lie about it, even before he did it. That is not true of everyone indeed, and some are definitely both guilty and irresponsible in front of human history. Let's hope all the fundamentalists, from the communistic, anarchistic or just old-fashioned Trotskyite left to the authoritarian, militaristic or plainly conservative right will be pushed aside and the reasonable who know life is a constant creation through work, learning, exchanging knowledge and goods, experience and expertise, and many other creative elements. In our societies some dead individuals were neglected and overlooked when burying time had come and they are still roaming around among us the living, un-dead as they are and be sure dead and un-alive un-dead they are. That's all the bad future I am dreaming humanity will offer themselves in the next few years, in the USA or in China, or in Europe, democracy in our homes and gardens and public squares. But remember a Shrine of Democracy has to be built in every home, in every school, in every village, in every neighborhood, and that will take more time and courage from everyone of us than just bouncing up and down in our seats and banging over and over again our hands on the tables, humming and repeating "Red Alert! Red Alert!" like some jackrabbits in a cabbage patch.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

No action - boring - bla bla bla bla

tt0208874

The first five minutes promised to be a good thriller but then the dialogues began to never stop till at the end. During the film I thought if that was a joke and I felt even asleep. I cannot understand why so many stars accepted a role in this absolutely boring film without an intelligent story? I have to admit that Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman gave a strong performance. But thanks God this mess hasn´t been shown in our theatres.How could Rod Lurie write and direct such a stupid film? Perhaps he thought it will work with Clinton´s crisis two years ago but he is no more president now. I had the sensation that this movie has been realized in the late 80s.I want to give you some advice: 1) Avoid this one and save your money.2) If once you cannot sleep watch this one and you will see that it helps like a soporific. You will not be disappointed.I give with my wife 4/10. It is too overrated.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-288

ur1634796

title: No action - boring - bla bla bla bla review: The first five minutes promised to be a good thriller but then the dialogues began to never stop till at the end. During the film I thought if that was a joke and I felt even asleep. I cannot understand why so many stars accepted a role in this absolutely boring film without an intelligent story? I have to admit that Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman gave a strong performance. But thanks God this mess hasn´t been shown in our theatres.How could Rod Lurie write and direct such a stupid film? Perhaps he thought it will work with Clinton´s crisis two years ago but he is no more president now. I had the sensation that this movie has been realized in the late 80s.I want to give you some advice: 1) Avoid this one and save your money.2) If once you cannot sleep watch this one and you will see that it helps like a soporific. You will not be disappointed.I give with my wife 4/10. It is too overrated.

A film with guts.

tt0208874

Warning: may be some spoilers.I am Canadian. Our exposure of politics doesn't come close to our American cousins so when the Prime Minister does something a little out of the ordinary, it makes the news for a couple of days and then it pretty much goes away. But we watch CNN and we keep abreast of what is happening in the USA. And one of the things that has always struck me as silly when it comes to the judging of politicians is when their personal life becomes just as important to the public as their politics does. The way I see it, the American public wants a person for president that just does not exist. They want someone who doesn't smoke, believes in God, goes to church, has never thought of committing adultery, has never had pre-marital sex, has never had a drink in their life, has never taken any sort of illegal drugs in their life, has never been tempted by anyone or anything to commit an indecent act, someone who never speeds, is in fantastic shape, listens to good Christian music, never curses, shouts, frowns and probably a president that never has to do number 2 in the bathroom. They want perfection in a person when no person can be perfect. If a president commits one act of impropriety, in anyone's eyes, then they are labeled unfit to serve. It's like the line in some movie who's title escapes me right now, that says, " I always wondered why if someone was a prostitute all of a sudden they can't see very well." American's want a seemingly perfect person when they themselves may be as imperfect as the next person, and that only stands to reason.The Contender is a film that takes a stand. It takes a stand and takes it firmly.Joan Allen, in an Oscar worthy performance, plays Lane Hanson, a state senator that is being nominated for the Vice Presidency after the former died in office. There are other politicians that feel that she should not be the V.P. and they will stop at nothing to prevent her from succeeding. It's not that her views and politics are diametric to what the others are, it's just that she is a woman. And it also turns out that she is a woman with a past.Shelley Runyon, also an Oscar worthy performance by Gary Oldman, is the perpetrator behind the scheme to drag her name through the mud. It seems that Lane was privy to a party in her first year of university where she may have been involved in a gang bang. The pictures look like her and there are men that are coming forward to substantiate the story. It is here that her character is put on trial. We also learn that she slept with a married man, that she does not go to church and she does not believe in the Biblical God and she feels that church and school should be separate entities. And she believes in abortion. She is grilled by Runyon in hopes that she will crack and that her reputation is damaged enough so that the American people would never support a questionale character like this. But Lane will not comment on her personal life. She will not substantiate the claims of her alleged gang bang in college and the reason that she won't do so is because it is really no ones business.The problem with this is that she has been recommended by the President of the United States, to succeed as the V.P. Now this makes the president and his advisers, particularly, Kermit Newman, played with delicious venomness by an unrecognizable Sam Elliot, also in an Oscar worthy performance, become questionable characters because they are the ones that are supporting her. To Lane's credit, she will not bow to pressure. Not from the public, not from Runyon, and not even from the President himself, to come forward and at least admit that she did the act. Lane vehemently maintains that her personal life should stay personal.I will not spoil the film by telling you how it turns out. I won't even tell you how some of the situations play out. What I will say is that the film had a grip on me. It indoctrinated me with how it felt and what it believed. There are not many films that have the integrity and the guts to tell it like it is. The Contender does. It makes us open our eyes and ask ourselves why does it really matter if someone has questionable morals. If you commited adultery, would you be fired from your job? If you slept with 75 women or in this case, 75 men, before you got married, should you be labelled a slut and deemed not fit to serve? What does that have to do with how capable you are to run a country and keep it's beliefs and democracy safe? There is so much emphasis put on one's sexual appetite that we seem to forget that one has nothing to do with another.The Contender has my vote as being one of the best films to come out so far this year. I would only put High Fidelity and Gladiator above it. But since those two pictures have zero chance of winning Oscars, I will say that this should be the leading Contender for Oscar.10 out of 10- you will not find a better film this year.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-90

ur0355122

title: A film with guts. review: Warning: may be some spoilers.I am Canadian. Our exposure of politics doesn't come close to our American cousins so when the Prime Minister does something a little out of the ordinary, it makes the news for a couple of days and then it pretty much goes away. But we watch CNN and we keep abreast of what is happening in the USA. And one of the things that has always struck me as silly when it comes to the judging of politicians is when their personal life becomes just as important to the public as their politics does. The way I see it, the American public wants a person for president that just does not exist. They want someone who doesn't smoke, believes in God, goes to church, has never thought of committing adultery, has never had pre-marital sex, has never had a drink in their life, has never taken any sort of illegal drugs in their life, has never been tempted by anyone or anything to commit an indecent act, someone who never speeds, is in fantastic shape, listens to good Christian music, never curses, shouts, frowns and probably a president that never has to do number 2 in the bathroom. They want perfection in a person when no person can be perfect. If a president commits one act of impropriety, in anyone's eyes, then they are labeled unfit to serve. It's like the line in some movie who's title escapes me right now, that says, " I always wondered why if someone was a prostitute all of a sudden they can't see very well." American's want a seemingly perfect person when they themselves may be as imperfect as the next person, and that only stands to reason.The Contender is a film that takes a stand. It takes a stand and takes it firmly.Joan Allen, in an Oscar worthy performance, plays Lane Hanson, a state senator that is being nominated for the Vice Presidency after the former died in office. There are other politicians that feel that she should not be the V.P. and they will stop at nothing to prevent her from succeeding. It's not that her views and politics are diametric to what the others are, it's just that she is a woman. And it also turns out that she is a woman with a past.Shelley Runyon, also an Oscar worthy performance by Gary Oldman, is the perpetrator behind the scheme to drag her name through the mud. It seems that Lane was privy to a party in her first year of university where she may have been involved in a gang bang. The pictures look like her and there are men that are coming forward to substantiate the story. It is here that her character is put on trial. We also learn that she slept with a married man, that she does not go to church and she does not believe in the Biblical God and she feels that church and school should be separate entities. And she believes in abortion. She is grilled by Runyon in hopes that she will crack and that her reputation is damaged enough so that the American people would never support a questionale character like this. But Lane will not comment on her personal life. She will not substantiate the claims of her alleged gang bang in college and the reason that she won't do so is because it is really no ones business.The problem with this is that she has been recommended by the President of the United States, to succeed as the V.P. Now this makes the president and his advisers, particularly, Kermit Newman, played with delicious venomness by an unrecognizable Sam Elliot, also in an Oscar worthy performance, become questionable characters because they are the ones that are supporting her. To Lane's credit, she will not bow to pressure. Not from the public, not from Runyon, and not even from the President himself, to come forward and at least admit that she did the act. Lane vehemently maintains that her personal life should stay personal.I will not spoil the film by telling you how it turns out. I won't even tell you how some of the situations play out. What I will say is that the film had a grip on me. It indoctrinated me with how it felt and what it believed. There are not many films that have the integrity and the guts to tell it like it is. The Contender does. It makes us open our eyes and ask ourselves why does it really matter if someone has questionable morals. If you commited adultery, would you be fired from your job? If you slept with 75 women or in this case, 75 men, before you got married, should you be labelled a slut and deemed not fit to serve? What does that have to do with how capable you are to run a country and keep it's beliefs and democracy safe? There is so much emphasis put on one's sexual appetite that we seem to forget that one has nothing to do with another.The Contender has my vote as being one of the best films to come out so far this year. I would only put High Fidelity and Gladiator above it. But since those two pictures have zero chance of winning Oscars, I will say that this should be the leading Contender for Oscar.10 out of 10- you will not find a better film this year.

Almost, But Not Quite, a Great and Relevant Cinematic Alarm Against Political Demagogy

tt0208874

Mostly, The Contender is a clever and educated view of the ways officials are chosen and sabotaged. The last ten minutes make it all a total charade, before which it's a drama about the first woman appointed to be vice president, but soon enough her nomination pivots entirely on a question mark from her youth: Did she more or less freely partake in group sex in college? An investigator purses his mouth over a decades-old photograph from a sorority party. If it is, she's going to have difficulty getting congressional approval.The movie's candidly progressive and Democratic, its antagonists conservative Republicans. When The Contender is referred to as a veiled commentary on the Lewinsky scandal, there's one word of that description that's incorrect: Veiled. The distinction between Hanson and Clinton is that when fanatics begin using their trademark impassioned rhetoric and lies by omission to steal a look into her linen closet, she purely declines to satisfy their questions, which is what Clinton should've done. "It's none of your business," she correctly tells GOP Rep. Shelly Runyon, whose strategy for acquiring and sustaining political power is by tempting the public's preconceptions, emotions and fears. An important line between legal wrongdoing and personal matter is only crossed and justified as soon as we begin to comply. This is true not only of political sex scandals but of HUAC's demagogic, reckless accusations, as well as any other public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents that could've been sidestepped were it not that the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this vicious circle.The current VP dies. It's generally presumed that a man will substitute, and a foremost nominee is Gov. Hathaway, who's just made heroic news. It's a spectacle like this, not a life of service, that the persona-mongers prefer, but the governor's trouble is that his rescue attempt fell short. Now President Evans wishes to make bold print in the textbooks by selecting a woman, and Sen. Hanson seems ideal. She's happily married, has a child, and when we first see her is having vigorous sex on a desk with her husband. Runyon, Gary Oldman's character, distrusts any woman entrusted with the nuclear switch: What if she gets all emotional? He's thrilled by data of her campus escapades.The movie's written and directed by Rod Lurie, ex-film critic and son of a political cartoonist. Most American movies act as if there are no parties. Even in political movies, characters seldom identify affiliations. The Contender has a political agenda, most clearly in the character of the GOP's Runyon, aptly a dishonorable power dealer. Whether you're sympathetic to the story might be determined by which you found more upsetting between the inquiry of the Republican counsel and Clinton's sidestepping efforts. In my opinion, I can conceive of myself, and nearly everybody else, responding as defensively as Clinton. However to ask Starr's questions, while they're no less human, have much more of an imposition on what the people are supposed to think about acceptable sex life, indeed designed to influence the people, and would've imbued me with repulsion at myself.Joan Allen turns in a very strong performance that should've made her name more familiar. Some actresses would've made the character too sensual, others too tough. Allen plays a woman with a vigorous physicality who all the same has an unbreakable moral code. She'd prefer to squander being VP than fulfill Runyon's immoral prying, and via her the movie, well, contends that we've gone overboard in our prying into the personal behavior of our public figures and have forgotten to separate privacy and policy, just as we have with other celebrities.Jeff Bridges plays Evans as a guy elected by seeming more easygoing and Southern-hospitality-style than he is. He's ceaselessly sending for food and urgently offering it around, in acts not so much of generosity as distractions. His top advisers, Sam Elliott and Saul Rubinek, have a snappish shorthand that indicates that they get the act but aren't fooled by it. And Christian Slater has a dodgy freshman Democratic representative ready to bargain his vote for a position on Runyon's committee.Oldman can play distinguished, mean, tactless, dignified. He vanishes into the character, with peeping spectacles, untamed mouth, wavy tresses teased over baldheadedness. He plays him as a guy with a stronger urge to know who's doing who than to do them himself. There are two illuminating scenes featuring his wife, who knows him more than anyone. If he's correct about Hanson, then he's not bad, just obnoxious. But even so, he's amiss, as he contested the nominee because of gender. Her history's purely a way of discrediting her. This is one of those infrequent movies where you come out having been startled and entertained, then begin debating. Or it could've been.It's at the conclusion where it has a completely unexpected crash. For a movie all about not copping out, Lurie does that with a breast-beating finale that falls somewhere between Path Adams' cloyingly uplifting lugubriousness and a maudlin stump-speech's romanticism, the impassioned rhetoric and emotional appeal I earlier criticized. It's hard to recall being let down so hard by a movie and makes me wonder if such a compromise was necessary to find it viable with such outright political views.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-390

ur8625456

title: Almost, But Not Quite, a Great and Relevant Cinematic Alarm Against Political Demagogy review: Mostly, The Contender is a clever and educated view of the ways officials are chosen and sabotaged. The last ten minutes make it all a total charade, before which it's a drama about the first woman appointed to be vice president, but soon enough her nomination pivots entirely on a question mark from her youth: Did she more or less freely partake in group sex in college? An investigator purses his mouth over a decades-old photograph from a sorority party. If it is, she's going to have difficulty getting congressional approval.The movie's candidly progressive and Democratic, its antagonists conservative Republicans. When The Contender is referred to as a veiled commentary on the Lewinsky scandal, there's one word of that description that's incorrect: Veiled. The distinction between Hanson and Clinton is that when fanatics begin using their trademark impassioned rhetoric and lies by omission to steal a look into her linen closet, she purely declines to satisfy their questions, which is what Clinton should've done. "It's none of your business," she correctly tells GOP Rep. Shelly Runyon, whose strategy for acquiring and sustaining political power is by tempting the public's preconceptions, emotions and fears. An important line between legal wrongdoing and personal matter is only crossed and justified as soon as we begin to comply. This is true not only of political sex scandals but of HUAC's demagogic, reckless accusations, as well as any other public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents that could've been sidestepped were it not that the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this vicious circle.The current VP dies. It's generally presumed that a man will substitute, and a foremost nominee is Gov. Hathaway, who's just made heroic news. It's a spectacle like this, not a life of service, that the persona-mongers prefer, but the governor's trouble is that his rescue attempt fell short. Now President Evans wishes to make bold print in the textbooks by selecting a woman, and Sen. Hanson seems ideal. She's happily married, has a child, and when we first see her is having vigorous sex on a desk with her husband. Runyon, Gary Oldman's character, distrusts any woman entrusted with the nuclear switch: What if she gets all emotional? He's thrilled by data of her campus escapades.The movie's written and directed by Rod Lurie, ex-film critic and son of a political cartoonist. Most American movies act as if there are no parties. Even in political movies, characters seldom identify affiliations. The Contender has a political agenda, most clearly in the character of the GOP's Runyon, aptly a dishonorable power dealer. Whether you're sympathetic to the story might be determined by which you found more upsetting between the inquiry of the Republican counsel and Clinton's sidestepping efforts. In my opinion, I can conceive of myself, and nearly everybody else, responding as defensively as Clinton. However to ask Starr's questions, while they're no less human, have much more of an imposition on what the people are supposed to think about acceptable sex life, indeed designed to influence the people, and would've imbued me with repulsion at myself.Joan Allen turns in a very strong performance that should've made her name more familiar. Some actresses would've made the character too sensual, others too tough. Allen plays a woman with a vigorous physicality who all the same has an unbreakable moral code. She'd prefer to squander being VP than fulfill Runyon's immoral prying, and via her the movie, well, contends that we've gone overboard in our prying into the personal behavior of our public figures and have forgotten to separate privacy and policy, just as we have with other celebrities.Jeff Bridges plays Evans as a guy elected by seeming more easygoing and Southern-hospitality-style than he is. He's ceaselessly sending for food and urgently offering it around, in acts not so much of generosity as distractions. His top advisers, Sam Elliott and Saul Rubinek, have a snappish shorthand that indicates that they get the act but aren't fooled by it. And Christian Slater has a dodgy freshman Democratic representative ready to bargain his vote for a position on Runyon's committee.Oldman can play distinguished, mean, tactless, dignified. He vanishes into the character, with peeping spectacles, untamed mouth, wavy tresses teased over baldheadedness. He plays him as a guy with a stronger urge to know who's doing who than to do them himself. There are two illuminating scenes featuring his wife, who knows him more than anyone. If he's correct about Hanson, then he's not bad, just obnoxious. But even so, he's amiss, as he contested the nominee because of gender. Her history's purely a way of discrediting her. This is one of those infrequent movies where you come out having been startled and entertained, then begin debating. Or it could've been.It's at the conclusion where it has a completely unexpected crash. For a movie all about not copping out, Lurie does that with a breast-beating finale that falls somewhere between Path Adams' cloyingly uplifting lugubriousness and a maudlin stump-speech's romanticism, the impassioned rhetoric and emotional appeal I earlier criticized. It's hard to recall being let down so hard by a movie and makes me wonder if such a compromise was necessary to find it viable with such outright political views.

Exceptional Political Thriller!

tt0208874

Imagine a women as the hero of the day, someone who's morals and sense of self and what's right go way beyond the standards set and lived by most people. This movie should be an inspiration to anyone, not just women, but to anyone who does what's right even when the going gets tough. Great acting and dialog, with an Oscar performance by Gary Oldman. I've watched this movie several times now and it never loses it's punch. I like movies that don't treat me like I'm a child. This is a thinking man/women's movie, so for those of you with few thought processes going on, don't bother watching this movie and giving it a bad rating. Anyone who rates this movie low should hope that someday brain transplants will be perfected and they can get another brain.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-366

ur11511110

title: Exceptional Political Thriller! review: Imagine a women as the hero of the day, someone who's morals and sense of self and what's right go way beyond the standards set and lived by most people. This movie should be an inspiration to anyone, not just women, but to anyone who does what's right even when the going gets tough. Great acting and dialog, with an Oscar performance by Gary Oldman. I've watched this movie several times now and it never loses it's punch. I like movies that don't treat me like I'm a child. This is a thinking man/women's movie, so for those of you with few thought processes going on, don't bother watching this movie and giving it a bad rating. Anyone who rates this movie low should hope that someday brain transplants will be perfected and they can get another brain.

Ethical dilemmas and too-good-to-be-true politicians

tt0208874

The film goes from a rather slow "are we going to see some action?" to a rather smug moral high ground as the pieces gather pace. Notwithstanding this, it makes some intellectually challenging comment on public vs private morality and the equality of the sexes. Joan Allen as the vice-presidential candidate is remarkably strong - rather stronger than we expect our politicians to be, and Jeff Bridges as the U.S. president blends toughness and earthiness in an almost convincing manner. Chameleonesqe Gary Oldman is barely recognizable as the Very Bad Guy and Christian Slater, in one of the less demanding parts, plays a fast-talking smart-ass character that he seems to enjoy. If you like analyzing the ethical validity of the dilemmas posed, go and see The Contender - if you just want a political action-drama though, this film may not hit the high points for you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208874/reviews-158

ur0064493

title: Ethical dilemmas and too-good-to-be-true politicians review: The film goes from a rather slow "are we going to see some action?" to a rather smug moral high ground as the pieces gather pace. Notwithstanding this, it makes some intellectually challenging comment on public vs private morality and the equality of the sexes. Joan Allen as the vice-presidential candidate is remarkably strong - rather stronger than we expect our politicians to be, and Jeff Bridges as the U.S. president blends toughness and earthiness in an almost convincing manner. Chameleonesqe Gary Oldman is barely recognizable as the Very Bad Guy and Christian Slater, in one of the less demanding parts, plays a fast-talking smart-ass character that he seems to enjoy. If you like analyzing the ethical validity of the dilemmas posed, go and see The Contender - if you just want a political action-drama though, this film may not hit the high points for you.

War is not a subject to be joked about.

tt0069280

Okay, the bombing of Dresden was a traumatic event. However, this movie treats that event as some kind of surrealistic happening which significantly understates the horror of what occurred there. Politics aside, a lot of people died there, died horrible deaths, yet,as much as it tries, this movie does little to evoke any feeling of compassion, the reason being that the story is told from the vantage point of an American, not a German. Perhaps if the story was told through another character, let's say, an eight year old German child who lost his or her entire family, then perhaps the movie would have been much stronger. War is subject not to be joked about or played with. It does not lend itself to a whimsical approach. The main character in this movie, an American soldier, is traumatized but his flashbacks are silly, completely out of place with the movie's somber theme, that war damages people, psychologically as well as physically.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-83

ur6458242

title: War is not a subject to be joked about. review: Okay, the bombing of Dresden was a traumatic event. However, this movie treats that event as some kind of surrealistic happening which significantly understates the horror of what occurred there. Politics aside, a lot of people died there, died horrible deaths, yet,as much as it tries, this movie does little to evoke any feeling of compassion, the reason being that the story is told from the vantage point of an American, not a German. Perhaps if the story was told through another character, let's say, an eight year old German child who lost his or her entire family, then perhaps the movie would have been much stronger. War is subject not to be joked about or played with. It does not lend itself to a whimsical approach. The main character in this movie, an American soldier, is traumatized but his flashbacks are silly, completely out of place with the movie's somber theme, that war damages people, psychologically as well as physically.

A Vonnegut Adaptation With Quality

tt0069280

.Iconic author Kurt Vonnegut falls in a similar category as other well known authors who's novel gets adapted from movies and leaves critics wondering if they will keep up with what was written in their novels. Vonnegut's novels are provocative in the sense that which we utilize our cognitive state of mind as we challenge the madness behind mankind's ways of thinking. Surely not suited for audience members to go to theaters just to be entertained.Such experiments of trying to bring a qualitative novel to the big screen has been a victim of utter failure over the years (like "Slapstick" for example). But with the dedicated skill and bravery of competent director George Roy Hill, it is safe to say that "Slaughterhouse-Five" was given life to the screen without anyone feeling any sense of insult or humiliation and leaves its audience the freedom to draw their own conclusions of what was revealed here. Overall it was a pleasant compliment to Vonnegut's work and deserves all the praises it's been given to fans and critics. The characters in the movie were everything that I expected from the novel Theperformances were just as special in bringing the novel to life.Michael Sacks was really believable in his performance as Billy Pilgrimand Sharon Gans was convincing as his rotund and domineering wife,Valenica Pilgrim. Billy has become withdrawn with his time, shiftingback and forth of his life From the catastrophic events of World War IIto the generic struggles of married life, the film succeeds in shiftingthe radom events chronologically way up where we find Mr. Pilgrimlocated on the nearby planet of Tralfamadore along with a scantily cladMontana wildhack (Valerie Perrine). The accuracy speaks volumes towardsthe numerous supporting characters that was well complimented fromVonnegut's novel.Novice Vonnegut fanatics might be turned of by the unsettling narrative, but the detail that was taken into consideration might even flabbergast the average moviegoer after this equally poignant Vonnegut movie adaptation..

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-89

ur12327230

title: A Vonnegut Adaptation With Quality review: .Iconic author Kurt Vonnegut falls in a similar category as other well known authors who's novel gets adapted from movies and leaves critics wondering if they will keep up with what was written in their novels. Vonnegut's novels are provocative in the sense that which we utilize our cognitive state of mind as we challenge the madness behind mankind's ways of thinking. Surely not suited for audience members to go to theaters just to be entertained.Such experiments of trying to bring a qualitative novel to the big screen has been a victim of utter failure over the years (like "Slapstick" for example). But with the dedicated skill and bravery of competent director George Roy Hill, it is safe to say that "Slaughterhouse-Five" was given life to the screen without anyone feeling any sense of insult or humiliation and leaves its audience the freedom to draw their own conclusions of what was revealed here. Overall it was a pleasant compliment to Vonnegut's work and deserves all the praises it's been given to fans and critics. The characters in the movie were everything that I expected from the novel Theperformances were just as special in bringing the novel to life.Michael Sacks was really believable in his performance as Billy Pilgrimand Sharon Gans was convincing as his rotund and domineering wife,Valenica Pilgrim. Billy has become withdrawn with his time, shiftingback and forth of his life From the catastrophic events of World War IIto the generic struggles of married life, the film succeeds in shiftingthe radom events chronologically way up where we find Mr. Pilgrimlocated on the nearby planet of Tralfamadore along with a scantily cladMontana wildhack (Valerie Perrine). The accuracy speaks volumes towardsthe numerous supporting characters that was well complimented fromVonnegut's novel.Novice Vonnegut fanatics might be turned of by the unsettling narrative, but the detail that was taken into consideration might even flabbergast the average moviegoer after this equally poignant Vonnegut movie adaptation..

Good Interpretation From The Book, But I Never Cared Too Much For The Book To Begin With

tt0069280

Kurt Vonnegut is my favorite author of all time. "Breakfast of Champions" and "Cat's Cradle" are my two favorite books that I have ever read. "Slaughterhouse-Five" was the third Vonnegut book that I had the opportunity to read and I must say that I was not all too impressed. I liked it well enough, but in comparison to the other Vonnegut books I've read "Slaughterhouse-Five" is way below average.I think the film did the book justice. It was alright, but much like the book, it was not above an "alright". I have two big complaints with "Slaughterhouse-Five". First, I did not care much for the way that the film (and book) kept flopping back and fourth through time. I get how he was a "time traveler", but I feel that the same point could have been achieved in a different way.I was also not a fan of the ending. It almost seemed like a cheap way out. Similar to a character waking up from a dream. It just really left me with a bad taste in my mouth.If you really like the book, you'll probably like the movie. But instead of watching this, or reading the book, I would suggest picking up a copy of "Breakfast of Champions" or "Cat's Cradle". Those two books really blew my mind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-81

ur10631863

title: Good Interpretation From The Book, But I Never Cared Too Much For The Book To Begin With review: Kurt Vonnegut is my favorite author of all time. "Breakfast of Champions" and "Cat's Cradle" are my two favorite books that I have ever read. "Slaughterhouse-Five" was the third Vonnegut book that I had the opportunity to read and I must say that I was not all too impressed. I liked it well enough, but in comparison to the other Vonnegut books I've read "Slaughterhouse-Five" is way below average.I think the film did the book justice. It was alright, but much like the book, it was not above an "alright". I have two big complaints with "Slaughterhouse-Five". First, I did not care much for the way that the film (and book) kept flopping back and fourth through time. I get how he was a "time traveler", but I feel that the same point could have been achieved in a different way.I was also not a fan of the ending. It almost seemed like a cheap way out. Similar to a character waking up from a dream. It just really left me with a bad taste in my mouth.If you really like the book, you'll probably like the movie. But instead of watching this, or reading the book, I would suggest picking up a copy of "Breakfast of Champions" or "Cat's Cradle". Those two books really blew my mind.

Good

tt0069280

While the film falls shy of greatness, it certainly did deserve the awards it won, such as the Prix de Jury (3rd Place) at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival. And, given how many films from the 1960s and 1970s have been pigeon-holed, due to their cultural limitations, it's refreshing to see a film that reflects its era- the 1940s through 1970s, yet does not wallow in it. While one can argue with the film's philosophical posit that everything is connected and predetermined, the presentation, or the art, of the ideas, is excellent. On a personal level, one of the things I find most refreshing about this film is how there is not a single character in it that looks like a movie star. All the main and supporting character roles are played by average looking actors. I sometimes just get tired of looking at films where, even if good acting is involved (such as the films of a Michelangelo Antonioni or Federico Fellini, much less the schlock that Hollywood cranks out), the people all look like perfect mannekins. Another refreshing thing about this film is that it's one of the rare examples of a film (especially considering it was a big studio Hollywood film) set in World War Two era Europe that has nothing to do with the Nazi genocide of European Jews. It's simply next to impossible to make a film on the Holocaust that does not fall into terminal PC preachiness. This film, however, shows the war from a unique perspective; one where humor and the flaws of individuals are on full display, rather than the stridency of a political ax to grind.Slaughterhouse-Five may or may not be a great film (I vote no), but it is a film worth watching. While it does not break as much ground in its art form as its source material does in its, it is a film that sticks with the viewer, forcing one to cogitate upon what it has imparted, Whether or not that means one is time tripping like Billy Pilgrim is up for debate.'Poo-tee-weet.'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-92

ur12394529

title: Good review: While the film falls shy of greatness, it certainly did deserve the awards it won, such as the Prix de Jury (3rd Place) at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival. And, given how many films from the 1960s and 1970s have been pigeon-holed, due to their cultural limitations, it's refreshing to see a film that reflects its era- the 1940s through 1970s, yet does not wallow in it. While one can argue with the film's philosophical posit that everything is connected and predetermined, the presentation, or the art, of the ideas, is excellent. On a personal level, one of the things I find most refreshing about this film is how there is not a single character in it that looks like a movie star. All the main and supporting character roles are played by average looking actors. I sometimes just get tired of looking at films where, even if good acting is involved (such as the films of a Michelangelo Antonioni or Federico Fellini, much less the schlock that Hollywood cranks out), the people all look like perfect mannekins. Another refreshing thing about this film is that it's one of the rare examples of a film (especially considering it was a big studio Hollywood film) set in World War Two era Europe that has nothing to do with the Nazi genocide of European Jews. It's simply next to impossible to make a film on the Holocaust that does not fall into terminal PC preachiness. This film, however, shows the war from a unique perspective; one where humor and the flaws of individuals are on full display, rather than the stridency of a political ax to grind.Slaughterhouse-Five may or may not be a great film (I vote no), but it is a film worth watching. While it does not break as much ground in its art form as its source material does in its, it is a film that sticks with the viewer, forcing one to cogitate upon what it has imparted, Whether or not that means one is time tripping like Billy Pilgrim is up for debate.'Poo-tee-weet.'

'Unstuck in Time' makes for interesting narrative

tt0069280

I give this film a 7 out of 10.It makes an eloquent statement about how traumatic moments in our life stay with us as if it ‘just happened yesterday'. What makes this film so appealing is how it depicts what would happen if you could jump around your entire life. When the future influences the past, it takes on a great significance. Billy Pilgrim is a humdrum Optometrist who nevertheless has an exciting life, surviving the bombing of Dresden in WW2, living through a plane crash, and being transported to another planet. Yet he maintains to be humble. As we follow Billy's life, the portrait of mediocre America is a touching contrast to the other moments that are frightening. He knows how he will die, and in the process becomes unafraid to live life to it's fullest. The inhabitants of the planet Tralfamador (??) say it is best to concentrate on the good moments in your life, and not so much on the bad. But they are still there, and you cannot erase that moment of your life. In essence, the true moral of this film is to accept all that has happened in your life. For if you don't, you deny the validity of your existence. When Billy finally writes about his adventures, others have a chance to learn about the world and themselves that would've otherwise been denied.Technically, the film uses the moments where Billy jumps in time as meaningful transitions. It interweaves lessons learned from one part of his life and applies it to the present moment (whenever that is). The film's real treasures are the supporting characters that surround Billy. It also vividly transports you to WW2, a semi-autobiographical account of Kurt Vonnegut's real life experiences in Dresden. The film is filled with anecdotes that present the film's other main theme, that life is indeed ironic.I was deeply touched by this film, with it's ability to whisk you from scenes of horror to amusing ‘Kodak moments'. The music poignantly represents these transitions, and helps to carry the film. In the end, you can accept his death, by having lived his life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-23

ur1158617

title: 'Unstuck in Time' makes for interesting narrative review: I give this film a 7 out of 10.It makes an eloquent statement about how traumatic moments in our life stay with us as if it ‘just happened yesterday'. What makes this film so appealing is how it depicts what would happen if you could jump around your entire life. When the future influences the past, it takes on a great significance. Billy Pilgrim is a humdrum Optometrist who nevertheless has an exciting life, surviving the bombing of Dresden in WW2, living through a plane crash, and being transported to another planet. Yet he maintains to be humble. As we follow Billy's life, the portrait of mediocre America is a touching contrast to the other moments that are frightening. He knows how he will die, and in the process becomes unafraid to live life to it's fullest. The inhabitants of the planet Tralfamador (??) say it is best to concentrate on the good moments in your life, and not so much on the bad. But they are still there, and you cannot erase that moment of your life. In essence, the true moral of this film is to accept all that has happened in your life. For if you don't, you deny the validity of your existence. When Billy finally writes about his adventures, others have a chance to learn about the world and themselves that would've otherwise been denied.Technically, the film uses the moments where Billy jumps in time as meaningful transitions. It interweaves lessons learned from one part of his life and applies it to the present moment (whenever that is). The film's real treasures are the supporting characters that surround Billy. It also vividly transports you to WW2, a semi-autobiographical account of Kurt Vonnegut's real life experiences in Dresden. The film is filled with anecdotes that present the film's other main theme, that life is indeed ironic.I was deeply touched by this film, with it's ability to whisk you from scenes of horror to amusing ‘Kodak moments'. The music poignantly represents these transitions, and helps to carry the film. In the end, you can accept his death, by having lived his life.

Actually pretty good

tt0069280

Take Billy Pilgrim, our hero. And take him on a trip along his life. Travelling in time. OK, so we're in the realms of science fiction and we're staying there.The majority of Pilgrims travels we get to see are parts of his life when he was a GI who was captured during World War 2.He's unlucky enough to get sent to Dresden and be there when it got bombed by the allies. (If it had nothing military there, WHY were they bombing it?).You get to see him travel to his childhood and even to the moment of his own death.He's also abducted by sex obsessed aliens who just want to watch him mating.I haven't read the book so I can't compare the 2 but the film is good, It kept me glued to the story all the way through.Well worth a look.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-65

ur0727639

title: Actually pretty good review: Take Billy Pilgrim, our hero. And take him on a trip along his life. Travelling in time. OK, so we're in the realms of science fiction and we're staying there.The majority of Pilgrims travels we get to see are parts of his life when he was a GI who was captured during World War 2.He's unlucky enough to get sent to Dresden and be there when it got bombed by the allies. (If it had nothing military there, WHY were they bombing it?).You get to see him travel to his childhood and even to the moment of his own death.He's also abducted by sex obsessed aliens who just want to watch him mating.I haven't read the book so I can't compare the 2 but the film is good, It kept me glued to the story all the way through.Well worth a look.

Satisfying to fans of the classic, but lacking creativity

tt0069280

Kurt Vonnegut Jr's book "Slaughterhouse-Five" is a classic and the film version gets by on this fact alone. The rather faithful adaptation is enough to satisfy fans of the novel, but not even the great George Roy Hill can manage to turn Stephen Geller's uninspired script into a more meaningful movie experience.To its credit, the film does find a handful of moments to illustrate how its main character, Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks), is unstuck in time. Vonnegut Jr's book is all about its fragmented and displaced structure, making the film's transitions key to visually re-creating "Slaughterhouse-Five." A number of these transitions work nicely, but mostly they feel like shifts between Billy during the war, Billy and his family life and Billy on the planet Tralfamador. They're sometimes quick and uncreative and we fail to ever fully enter Billy's shoes.It's a shame, because Billy Pilgrim is an easy character to sympathize with. His horror stories as a prisoner of war in Germany, living through the bombing of Dresden and the unsatisfactory marriage that he's sort of participating in are emblematic of many average peoples' lives. Compound that with the idea that he experiences his life out of order, unable to put anything in the past or avoid the future and his existence is something we can't help but wonder how we would handle -- and ultimately be glad we don't have to.Part of the problem is that Vonnegut Jr's beautiful but difficult prose is lost. Say "So it goes" at the end of a sentence and any literature lover will get your reference. The phrase doesn't so much as earn a cameo to my recollection in the entire film. Rarely does a film beg for a film-making technique like "Slaughterhouse-Five," but it's painfully obvious that it needs voice-over narration, or some kind of guiding force to help us through this structurally disjointed journey.Hill and Geller create some nice moments that weren't notable or even included in the book, but it's all throwaway without something to tie it together, something to complicate Vonnegut Jr's themes and allude to the epiphany about time at the climax. Instead, Pilgrim's explanation of time in the final ten minutes is the crux of the entire film, the only moment that really exposes the goal of the story's chronological experiment.Geller's adaptation is just not enough. It's satisfying and faithful, but it doesn't leave an imprint like the novel does. The screenplay doesn't match the intensity of the creative energy from Vonnegut Jr's classic, it merely attempts to mimic it in the most basic way.~Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-80

ur2496397

title: Satisfying to fans of the classic, but lacking creativity review: Kurt Vonnegut Jr's book "Slaughterhouse-Five" is a classic and the film version gets by on this fact alone. The rather faithful adaptation is enough to satisfy fans of the novel, but not even the great George Roy Hill can manage to turn Stephen Geller's uninspired script into a more meaningful movie experience.To its credit, the film does find a handful of moments to illustrate how its main character, Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks), is unstuck in time. Vonnegut Jr's book is all about its fragmented and displaced structure, making the film's transitions key to visually re-creating "Slaughterhouse-Five." A number of these transitions work nicely, but mostly they feel like shifts between Billy during the war, Billy and his family life and Billy on the planet Tralfamador. They're sometimes quick and uncreative and we fail to ever fully enter Billy's shoes.It's a shame, because Billy Pilgrim is an easy character to sympathize with. His horror stories as a prisoner of war in Germany, living through the bombing of Dresden and the unsatisfactory marriage that he's sort of participating in are emblematic of many average peoples' lives. Compound that with the idea that he experiences his life out of order, unable to put anything in the past or avoid the future and his existence is something we can't help but wonder how we would handle -- and ultimately be glad we don't have to.Part of the problem is that Vonnegut Jr's beautiful but difficult prose is lost. Say "So it goes" at the end of a sentence and any literature lover will get your reference. The phrase doesn't so much as earn a cameo to my recollection in the entire film. Rarely does a film beg for a film-making technique like "Slaughterhouse-Five," but it's painfully obvious that it needs voice-over narration, or some kind of guiding force to help us through this structurally disjointed journey.Hill and Geller create some nice moments that weren't notable or even included in the book, but it's all throwaway without something to tie it together, something to complicate Vonnegut Jr's themes and allude to the epiphany about time at the climax. Instead, Pilgrim's explanation of time in the final ten minutes is the crux of the entire film, the only moment that really exposes the goal of the story's chronological experiment.Geller's adaptation is just not enough. It's satisfying and faithful, but it doesn't leave an imprint like the novel does. The screenplay doesn't match the intensity of the creative energy from Vonnegut Jr's classic, it merely attempts to mimic it in the most basic way.~Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com

Vonnegut's Classic Through Roy Hill's Lens

tt0069280

The film Slaughterhouse 5 is a brilliantly portrayed interpretation of a great but typically multilinear novel by science fiction author Kurt Vonnegut. With all due respect to the literary critics, sci fi really is what Vonnegut most often wrote - whether or not it is viewed as allegory or even 'serious literature'. As such, it was not really made to convey the same messages,nor even the aesthetics of the book, but rather to convey the director's (and others on the creative team) impressions of the book.The book is also brilliant, but none of Vonnegut's work is easily adapted to the medium of film. Not quite the task Cronenberg took on when he directed Burrough's Naked Lunch, but very similar in method.S-5 exposes us to the life of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) and his many loves (his dog spot, his wife played by Holly Near and an actress played by Valerie Perrine), as he either blacks out and travels into the deep recesses of his memory experiencing the delusion of time travel or (as indicated by his occasional leaps forward in time), he actually has become 'unstuck in time.' Between trips back to Dresden during its WWII bombing and trips forward to the planet Tralfamador, it seems that Billy is constantly tripping. Yet he manages to build a successful and very normal American life despite his bizarre and uncontrollable time-travel habit. The film illustrates the non-linear manner in which the book is written by skipping from time to time in a seemingly random manner, but it manages to do so without losing focus on Pilgrim, who is, in fact always living in the present regardless of what time he happens to be experiencing. Fantastic directoral method!The film makes a lot of subtle, simple and very good points by making Billy - a quiet simple guy with an extraordinary set of circumstances in his life - a true hero simply because he is relatively nice, somewhat aloof, happy, and quite normal. Sacks' performance is spot-on.This film is beautifully photographed, very well paced, perfectly directed and edited. The acting is all quite good, and comes from a well appointed cast mostly consisting of character actors. I was particularly impressed with Eugene Roche's excellent portrayal of Edgar Derby.Highly recommended for the art-house crowd and friends of intelligent sci fi.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-67

ur3824745

title: Vonnegut's Classic Through Roy Hill's Lens review: The film Slaughterhouse 5 is a brilliantly portrayed interpretation of a great but typically multilinear novel by science fiction author Kurt Vonnegut. With all due respect to the literary critics, sci fi really is what Vonnegut most often wrote - whether or not it is viewed as allegory or even 'serious literature'. As such, it was not really made to convey the same messages,nor even the aesthetics of the book, but rather to convey the director's (and others on the creative team) impressions of the book.The book is also brilliant, but none of Vonnegut's work is easily adapted to the medium of film. Not quite the task Cronenberg took on when he directed Burrough's Naked Lunch, but very similar in method.S-5 exposes us to the life of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) and his many loves (his dog spot, his wife played by Holly Near and an actress played by Valerie Perrine), as he either blacks out and travels into the deep recesses of his memory experiencing the delusion of time travel or (as indicated by his occasional leaps forward in time), he actually has become 'unstuck in time.' Between trips back to Dresden during its WWII bombing and trips forward to the planet Tralfamador, it seems that Billy is constantly tripping. Yet he manages to build a successful and very normal American life despite his bizarre and uncontrollable time-travel habit. The film illustrates the non-linear manner in which the book is written by skipping from time to time in a seemingly random manner, but it manages to do so without losing focus on Pilgrim, who is, in fact always living in the present regardless of what time he happens to be experiencing. Fantastic directoral method!The film makes a lot of subtle, simple and very good points by making Billy - a quiet simple guy with an extraordinary set of circumstances in his life - a true hero simply because he is relatively nice, somewhat aloof, happy, and quite normal. Sacks' performance is spot-on.This film is beautifully photographed, very well paced, perfectly directed and edited. The acting is all quite good, and comes from a well appointed cast mostly consisting of character actors. I was particularly impressed with Eugene Roche's excellent portrayal of Edgar Derby.Highly recommended for the art-house crowd and friends of intelligent sci fi.

A Technically Accurate Translation That Misses the Invariable Quirks of the Novel

tt0069280

An extremely loyal interpretation of the classic Vonnegut novel that skirts the issue of explaining its complicated premise by way of a quick typewriter scene. Seeing it on-screen somehow makes everything seem less surreal than it was in print, even when the scene randomly shifts from a Nazi POW camp to a sharp, sparsely-decorated single room apartment on the surface of an alien world. Really just a handful of loosely-related tales from the protagonist's life, it's four distinct scenes tied together by jarring moments of deja vu and a strange, out-of-step sense of humor. A curious adventure, if only due to the sheer absurdity of its most profound scenes, it fails to stand out in any other meaningful ways. It's more straightforward and matter of fact than the book, and lacks many of the wry grins and quirks that made the original work stand apart. What works in print doesn't always translate so literally to the screen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-87

ur26266323

title: A Technically Accurate Translation That Misses the Invariable Quirks of the Novel review: An extremely loyal interpretation of the classic Vonnegut novel that skirts the issue of explaining its complicated premise by way of a quick typewriter scene. Seeing it on-screen somehow makes everything seem less surreal than it was in print, even when the scene randomly shifts from a Nazi POW camp to a sharp, sparsely-decorated single room apartment on the surface of an alien world. Really just a handful of loosely-related tales from the protagonist's life, it's four distinct scenes tied together by jarring moments of deja vu and a strange, out-of-step sense of humor. A curious adventure, if only due to the sheer absurdity of its most profound scenes, it fails to stand out in any other meaningful ways. It's more straightforward and matter of fact than the book, and lacks many of the wry grins and quirks that made the original work stand apart. What works in print doesn't always translate so literally to the screen.

Slaughterhouse-Five Review

tt0069280

Chances are you may have heard of Slaughterhouse-Five; it's one of the highly-tutted classics of science fiction, penned by the ever-eccentric Kurt Vonnegut. As of this writing, I've never actually read the book, but this movie seems to capture the gist of things. It's a very strange, surrealist story that chronicles a man's life and death through a series of random time-jumps. The man was a prisoner in WWII (and the actual slaughterhouse was his residence), before raising a dysfunctional family afterwards, and then being abducted by aliens. Yep, strange stuff indeed.The film will be most memorable for the rough and dirty war scenes, the sporadic family outbursts, and the scenes on Tralfamadore. Parts of it drag a little, but there's enough interesting scenes to pull the film together and maintain interest, especially for fans of sci-fi, war movies, or bizarre cinema in general.I have no idea how close of an adaptation this movie is to the book, but on its own merits, the film does an interesting job of using its random narrative structure to show the character at the different phases of his life; really, it shows somewhere between three to five different narrative strings at once. Some scenes run into each other, with characters in one timeline finishing off dialogue from another, or scenes mirroring each other so that they're intercut together. It makes the film run as one long and smooth stream of consciousness, while exploring the character's life, memories, and psyche in full. In a way, you probably could interpret this whole film as the memories, memoirs, and dreams of a man who's either mentally insane or dead.If there's anything to complain about, it's just the sheer randomness of the story, for even with its constant focus on the main character, it never settles on any specific plot structure or tangible form.The film has quality photography and really excellent editing. Acting is a bit over-the-top, but it gets the job done really well, and the writing is not bad. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is not bad either.For bringing a literary classic to life, the film is worthwhile seeing. As random and strange as it is, I'd recommended some caution: rent it and see what you think for yourself.4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-90

ur24364152

title: Slaughterhouse-Five Review review: Chances are you may have heard of Slaughterhouse-Five; it's one of the highly-tutted classics of science fiction, penned by the ever-eccentric Kurt Vonnegut. As of this writing, I've never actually read the book, but this movie seems to capture the gist of things. It's a very strange, surrealist story that chronicles a man's life and death through a series of random time-jumps. The man was a prisoner in WWII (and the actual slaughterhouse was his residence), before raising a dysfunctional family afterwards, and then being abducted by aliens. Yep, strange stuff indeed.The film will be most memorable for the rough and dirty war scenes, the sporadic family outbursts, and the scenes on Tralfamadore. Parts of it drag a little, but there's enough interesting scenes to pull the film together and maintain interest, especially for fans of sci-fi, war movies, or bizarre cinema in general.I have no idea how close of an adaptation this movie is to the book, but on its own merits, the film does an interesting job of using its random narrative structure to show the character at the different phases of his life; really, it shows somewhere between three to five different narrative strings at once. Some scenes run into each other, with characters in one timeline finishing off dialogue from another, or scenes mirroring each other so that they're intercut together. It makes the film run as one long and smooth stream of consciousness, while exploring the character's life, memories, and psyche in full. In a way, you probably could interpret this whole film as the memories, memoirs, and dreams of a man who's either mentally insane or dead.If there's anything to complain about, it's just the sheer randomness of the story, for even with its constant focus on the main character, it never settles on any specific plot structure or tangible form.The film has quality photography and really excellent editing. Acting is a bit over-the-top, but it gets the job done really well, and the writing is not bad. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is not bad either.For bringing a literary classic to life, the film is worthwhile seeing. As random and strange as it is, I'd recommended some caution: rent it and see what you think for yourself.4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

" I live my life as others do, except that mine is lived in reverse "

tt0069280

Kurt Vonnegut, the author died recently (2007) but whilst his life ended, his literally images, words and works live on in the cinema. This is one such gem called "Slaughter-House Five." It's the story of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) who's character is plucked from one life period and transferred to other times and dimensions. What is curious about Pilgrim is that he is aware of his Past and future, as they happen and before. In his most prevalent episode he is a prisoner, during World War Two, where a most ardent antagonist Paul Lazzaro (Ron Leibman) takes an instant dislike to Pilgrim and wrongly believes he caused an American G.I.'s death. Another prisoner Edgar Derby (Eugene Roche) tries to explain why and offers Pilgrim a great deal of life's philosophies, which Pilgrim already knows but can't stop the progression. While his past is in progress, Pilgrim is content to spend time in his future where a beautiful woman named Montana Wildhack (Valerie Perrine) and he have been brought together for the purpose of mating. If you read the book, understanding the movie is easier, but not if you expect the life sequences to be spatially correct. The film story is beautifully crafted as is the novel and each lend themselves to the fanciful purpose of creating a Classic. ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-78

ur3902771

title: " I live my life as others do, except that mine is lived in reverse " review: Kurt Vonnegut, the author died recently (2007) but whilst his life ended, his literally images, words and works live on in the cinema. This is one such gem called "Slaughter-House Five." It's the story of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) who's character is plucked from one life period and transferred to other times and dimensions. What is curious about Pilgrim is that he is aware of his Past and future, as they happen and before. In his most prevalent episode he is a prisoner, during World War Two, where a most ardent antagonist Paul Lazzaro (Ron Leibman) takes an instant dislike to Pilgrim and wrongly believes he caused an American G.I.'s death. Another prisoner Edgar Derby (Eugene Roche) tries to explain why and offers Pilgrim a great deal of life's philosophies, which Pilgrim already knows but can't stop the progression. While his past is in progress, Pilgrim is content to spend time in his future where a beautiful woman named Montana Wildhack (Valerie Perrine) and he have been brought together for the purpose of mating. If you read the book, understanding the movie is easier, but not if you expect the life sequences to be spatially correct. The film story is beautifully crafted as is the novel and each lend themselves to the fanciful purpose of creating a Classic. ****

People who say this is a bad adaptations don't understand how to adapt novels to film

tt0069280

Surprisingly excellent adaptation of a novel you'd think would be impossible to adapt. Honestly, I'm not that sure that someone who hasn't read the novel could follow the movie that well, but, as a fan of the source material, I think the film's a good companion piece to it. Michael Sacks is great as Billy Pilgrim, a man who becomes unstuck in time, drifting between his youth as an assistant chaplain captured by Germans in WWII, to the safe and modest life of a suburban businessman, to his abduction by aliens and his life in an alien zoo on the planet Tralfamadore. The film perfectly captures the tone of the novel, a precarious balance act between the tragedy and absurdity of human existence. Most of the greatest bits of the novel are translated beautifully to the screen. I especially loved Billy and his fellow P.O.W.'s entrance into the city of Dresden. The film lacks Kurt Vonnegut's brilliant narration, and not once do the words "so it goes" heard or seen. But George Roy Hill, generally a pretty bland director, gets everything else right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069280/reviews-82

ur0391152

title: People who say this is a bad adaptations don't understand how to adapt novels to film review: Surprisingly excellent adaptation of a novel you'd think would be impossible to adapt. Honestly, I'm not that sure that someone who hasn't read the novel could follow the movie that well, but, as a fan of the source material, I think the film's a good companion piece to it. Michael Sacks is great as Billy Pilgrim, a man who becomes unstuck in time, drifting between his youth as an assistant chaplain captured by Germans in WWII, to the safe and modest life of a suburban businessman, to his abduction by aliens and his life in an alien zoo on the planet Tralfamadore. The film perfectly captures the tone of the novel, a precarious balance act between the tragedy and absurdity of human existence. Most of the greatest bits of the novel are translated beautifully to the screen. I especially loved Billy and his fellow P.O.W.'s entrance into the city of Dresden. The film lacks Kurt Vonnegut's brilliant narration, and not once do the words "so it goes" heard or seen. But George Roy Hill, generally a pretty bland director, gets everything else right.

What a load of shitake mushrooms!

tt1517489

Robert Rodriguez's Spy Kids franchise has gone seriously downhill since the first movie, with All The Time In The World in 4D easily being the worst adventure yet. An incredibly messy story, a glut of cheap-ass CGI special effects, godawful direction, a pair of bland moppets in the lead roles, enough dreadful 'time' puns to last me until the end of time, and the inclusion of a scratch-and-sniff gimmick that smacks of desperation, all go to make this film a real stinker.About the only good thing about this Spy Kids flick (for me at least) is the return of Alexa Vega as Carmen Cortez, who has grown up very nicely indeed and who looks fantastic in her body-hugging spy outfit (far better than Alba in my opinion). Vega's presence made it a tad easier for me to stomach all the puerile toilet humour and crap one-liners from smug comedian Ricky Gervais (as a talking dog), but I still found it hard to make it through to the end.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-66

ur0945066

title: What a load of shitake mushrooms! review: Robert Rodriguez's Spy Kids franchise has gone seriously downhill since the first movie, with All The Time In The World in 4D easily being the worst adventure yet. An incredibly messy story, a glut of cheap-ass CGI special effects, godawful direction, a pair of bland moppets in the lead roles, enough dreadful 'time' puns to last me until the end of time, and the inclusion of a scratch-and-sniff gimmick that smacks of desperation, all go to make this film a real stinker.About the only good thing about this Spy Kids flick (for me at least) is the return of Alexa Vega as Carmen Cortez, who has grown up very nicely indeed and who looks fantastic in her body-hugging spy outfit (far better than Alba in my opinion). Vega's presence made it a tad easier for me to stomach all the puerile toilet humour and crap one-liners from smug comedian Ricky Gervais (as a talking dog), but I still found it hard to make it through to the end.

only for 12 year olds

tt1517489

I remember when Spy Kids first came out. I really liked it. Of course, I was also a kid back then. This movie isn't for anyone over the age of 15. It's filled with barf and gas jokes, the older crowd will be just disgusted by it because they aren't funny. And there wasn't a whole lot of cool spy devices in this. Seeing a spy on a mission carrying her baby around is just too much on the silly side.The dog was cute, he should have been the babysitter. Jeremy Piven wasn't much of a villain as Tick Tock. He's trying to steal time and as we find out it's because of his tragic childhood.FINAL VERDICT: Not worth it

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-69

ur1773414

title: only for 12 year olds review: I remember when Spy Kids first came out. I really liked it. Of course, I was also a kid back then. This movie isn't for anyone over the age of 15. It's filled with barf and gas jokes, the older crowd will be just disgusted by it because they aren't funny. And there wasn't a whole lot of cool spy devices in this. Seeing a spy on a mission carrying her baby around is just too much on the silly side.The dog was cute, he should have been the babysitter. Jeremy Piven wasn't much of a villain as Tick Tock. He's trying to steal time and as we find out it's because of his tragic childhood.FINAL VERDICT: Not worth it

great

tt1517489

it was great the 4d rocks it was funny it was cool, it was fun it was packet you will like this movie a lot it was a really good movie to see it was a good 3d movie i think you will like it too it was funny i think it was a blast go see it today before it gets sold out i really enjoyed it you will too it was a silly movie it was i enjoyed it so much i give it a 4 to of 4 stars that is how good it is it was the best spy kids move ever it was the bomb to watch to see to smell it is the best popcorn movie you could see it was a really funny movie for the family to see it was better than glee 3d it was better than toy story it was better than toy story 2 it was better than toy story 3 it was funny you will have to see because if you don't you missed out on this good movie it was really funny you will see 3d the whole way though the it was great for everyone whole movie to see it was a blast to see it in 3d it was just a good movie you will like it a lot because it was just a good movie to see it was funny it was silly it was stupid my mom said it was for kids but i loved it a lot it was a really good movie i enjoyed it a lot and you will like it too it was funny it was so good it was funny it was a great 4d movie it was a great 3d movie you will like it was so good it was a funny fun movie to see go see it today before it gets to be a sold out movie it was really really good 3d movie you will like it a lot it was a great 4d movie to see you peoplewill like it a lot go see it today it is a funny funny funny movie you will like it so much it is a 4 star movie by me 3 stars by my mom it was a hoot it was a really good movie this was the best movie i saw this year please hit yes that you liked my review it was a blast it felt if you ware in the movie it was a movie that should play for a year it was a funny funny funny funny movie to see it was a funny movie i hope you enjoy it i like this movie in 4D a lot and the 3D was good

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-9

ur25362190

title: great review: it was great the 4d rocks it was funny it was cool, it was fun it was packet you will like this movie a lot it was a really good movie to see it was a good 3d movie i think you will like it too it was funny i think it was a blast go see it today before it gets sold out i really enjoyed it you will too it was a silly movie it was i enjoyed it so much i give it a 4 to of 4 stars that is how good it is it was the best spy kids move ever it was the bomb to watch to see to smell it is the best popcorn movie you could see it was a really funny movie for the family to see it was better than glee 3d it was better than toy story it was better than toy story 2 it was better than toy story 3 it was funny you will have to see because if you don't you missed out on this good movie it was really funny you will see 3d the whole way though the it was great for everyone whole movie to see it was a blast to see it in 3d it was just a good movie you will like it a lot because it was just a good movie to see it was funny it was silly it was stupid my mom said it was for kids but i loved it a lot it was a really good movie i enjoyed it a lot and you will like it too it was funny it was so good it was funny it was a great 4d movie it was a great 3d movie you will like it was so good it was a funny fun movie to see go see it today before it gets to be a sold out movie it was really really good 3d movie you will like it a lot it was a great 4d movie to see you peoplewill like it a lot go see it today it is a funny funny funny movie you will like it so much it is a 4 star movie by me 3 stars by my mom it was a hoot it was a really good movie this was the best movie i saw this year please hit yes that you liked my review it was a blast it felt if you ware in the movie it was a movie that should play for a year it was a funny funny funny funny movie to see it was a funny movie i hope you enjoy it i like this movie in 4D a lot and the 3D was good

A Dormant Franchise Returns

tt1517489

Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World is the fourth installment of the Spy Kids series that was resurrected after eight years of absence in 2011.This family film adventure movie by Robert Rodriguez stars the originals - Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara - together with Jessica Alba,Joel McHale,Rowan Blanchard,Mason Cook,Ricky Gervais and Jeremy Piven.The story of the fourth film is about a family that seeks the help of Spy Kids - Carmen and Juni Cortez - after they are threatened by a nemesis who intends to take over the world.Marissa Cortez Wilson is married to a famous television reporter and has step kids Rebecca and Cecil,who happen to be intelligent kids and who apparently don't want their stepmother around so much. Apparently,Marissa happens to be a retired spy and her world is turned upside down after a new nemesis - Timekeeper - plans to take over the planet.In her mission,she seeks the help of the Spy Kids to stop Timekeeper's evil plans.At this film,the series has obviously run its course.It should have not been brought back to screen considering that the fourth film has been characterized by the same old plot that worked in the original such as under-aged kids acting as spies,nemesis that have the same mission of taking over the world and bringing back the new special effect particularly the crummy old AromaScope.It is apparent that the children who have enjoyed the first three films have grown up as adults just like the original Spy Kids cast and they have definitely outgrown the fun,excitement and entertainment that it is expected to provide.The box office results is a testament to that as it was the lowest among all four films.In the end,it is time to put a halt to the series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-88

ur5291991

title: A Dormant Franchise Returns review: Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World is the fourth installment of the Spy Kids series that was resurrected after eight years of absence in 2011.This family film adventure movie by Robert Rodriguez stars the originals - Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara - together with Jessica Alba,Joel McHale,Rowan Blanchard,Mason Cook,Ricky Gervais and Jeremy Piven.The story of the fourth film is about a family that seeks the help of Spy Kids - Carmen and Juni Cortez - after they are threatened by a nemesis who intends to take over the world.Marissa Cortez Wilson is married to a famous television reporter and has step kids Rebecca and Cecil,who happen to be intelligent kids and who apparently don't want their stepmother around so much. Apparently,Marissa happens to be a retired spy and her world is turned upside down after a new nemesis - Timekeeper - plans to take over the planet.In her mission,she seeks the help of the Spy Kids to stop Timekeeper's evil plans.At this film,the series has obviously run its course.It should have not been brought back to screen considering that the fourth film has been characterized by the same old plot that worked in the original such as under-aged kids acting as spies,nemesis that have the same mission of taking over the world and bringing back the new special effect particularly the crummy old AromaScope.It is apparent that the children who have enjoyed the first three films have grown up as adults just like the original Spy Kids cast and they have definitely outgrown the fun,excitement and entertainment that it is expected to provide.The box office results is a testament to that as it was the lowest among all four films.In the end,it is time to put a halt to the series.

An entertaining family film

tt1517489

I liked the films Spy Kids and Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams very much because they captured the tone and sensibility of the best family cinema, naughty and subversive but without falling into the vulgarity and without insulting the audience's intelligence. However, I think the third film of the saga (Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over) stretched the concept too much and lost the focus on the characters, making them lose any grace. Now, the fourth film Spy Kids: All the Time in the World tried to resurrect the franchise with a new family of spies, some characters we already knew and a potentially creative screenplay which did not end up being as ingenious as it could have been. The final result is an entertaining, but not very memorable family film, which is very superior to the third one of the saga, but very inferior to the first two ones.The actors from Spy Kids: All the Time in the World make a good work in their roles, starting by the kids Rowan Blanchard and Mason Cook, who are likable and spontaneous. Jessica Alba and Joel McHale have a good chemistry with each other, and also feel natural and credible, without exaggerating the humor moments nor forcing their emotions during the obligatory scenes of family conflict (Oh, no! The father works a lot and doesn't have any time to be with his sons! The kids miss their biological mom and resent the arrival of their father's new wife!). I generally don't like Alba's performances, but I have to admit she made a competent work in here. However, what I most liked in Spy Kids: All the Time in the World is the dog Argonaut, in part because of the animal's charm and ability, and in part because of Ricky Gervais' energetic voice work.As for Robert Rodriguez's direction in here, it feels kinda impersonal; like if Spy Kids: All the Time in the World was only a clause in his contract with Dimension Films, or a quick source of funding for him to make a movie in which he is more interested. Nevertheless, I had a good time while watching Spy Kids: All the Time in the World despite not being very memorable, and I can give it a moderate recommendation as a casual entertainment to spend a pleasant time with the whole family. But if you wanna see genuinely creative family cinema, I recommend you the first two films of this saga, or the underrated Shorts, which was also directed by Rodriguez.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-61

ur6216723

title: An entertaining family film review: I liked the films Spy Kids and Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams very much because they captured the tone and sensibility of the best family cinema, naughty and subversive but without falling into the vulgarity and without insulting the audience's intelligence. However, I think the third film of the saga (Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over) stretched the concept too much and lost the focus on the characters, making them lose any grace. Now, the fourth film Spy Kids: All the Time in the World tried to resurrect the franchise with a new family of spies, some characters we already knew and a potentially creative screenplay which did not end up being as ingenious as it could have been. The final result is an entertaining, but not very memorable family film, which is very superior to the third one of the saga, but very inferior to the first two ones.The actors from Spy Kids: All the Time in the World make a good work in their roles, starting by the kids Rowan Blanchard and Mason Cook, who are likable and spontaneous. Jessica Alba and Joel McHale have a good chemistry with each other, and also feel natural and credible, without exaggerating the humor moments nor forcing their emotions during the obligatory scenes of family conflict (Oh, no! The father works a lot and doesn't have any time to be with his sons! The kids miss their biological mom and resent the arrival of their father's new wife!). I generally don't like Alba's performances, but I have to admit she made a competent work in here. However, what I most liked in Spy Kids: All the Time in the World is the dog Argonaut, in part because of the animal's charm and ability, and in part because of Ricky Gervais' energetic voice work.As for Robert Rodriguez's direction in here, it feels kinda impersonal; like if Spy Kids: All the Time in the World was only a clause in his contract with Dimension Films, or a quick source of funding for him to make a movie in which he is more interested. Nevertheless, I had a good time while watching Spy Kids: All the Time in the World despite not being very memorable, and I can give it a moderate recommendation as a casual entertainment to spend a pleasant time with the whole family. But if you wanna see genuinely creative family cinema, I recommend you the first two films of this saga, or the underrated Shorts, which was also directed by Rodriguez.

A unimaginative, pointless, cheap family film

tt1517489

Hopes were not high coming into Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. It is the fourth film in a franchise suffering from diminishing returns, plus it was using the stupid idea of smell-o-vision. And this family film does not disappoint.Marissa Wilson (Jessica Alba) is a top OSS spy who retires after capturing a super villain, Tik Tok, and starts a family with her husband Wilbur (Joel McHale) and stepchildren Rebecca (Rowan Blanchard) and Cecil (Mason Cook). A year later a new villain has emerged, the Time Keeper, who speeds up time using the Armageddon Device to punish humanity for wasting time. Marissa is called back by the OSS director, Danger D'Amo (Jeremy Piven), to recapture Tik Tok which should lead them to the Time Keeper. But the Time Keeper sets out to kidnap Rebecca and Cecil because Rebecca has the only thing that could stop the Armageddon Device.There are many problems with Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. It's a cheap and unimaginative film where you could easily predict how they would play out. We have seen these story elements so many times before: the dad is a workaholic; there is animosity between step-mum and step-daughter as the step-mum tries to get closer to the children; the revelation of a lie, and so many others. The humour is crude, mostly poo, fart and vomit gags, basically the lowest common denominator which most children will easily outgrow. The other major route of humour is the barrage of puns: time puns, dog puns and smell puns – we're not stupid! The action is rudimentary; it is easy to expect much better from Robert Rodriguez who just uses poor CGI and quick cuts. And if you can't guess who the Time Keeper really is then you haven't seen enough movies. Spy Kids: All the Time in the World feels like it is a movie that is only made for a quick buck, not for any love of the material or the need to tell a good story.A movie aimed at children should be able to enliven their imaginations: Spy Kids: All the Time in the World is not going to do that. The artificial CGI scenes just look too fake for children to accept and buy into the action and the basic predictable plot will mean that children will not love it. Adults and parents will feel nothing but suffering when watching this movie. This is just a mindless movie with no imagination, which is ironic considering it makes a point that children make better spies because they have more imagination. Children are smart; they ask questions, see plot holes and come up with ideas involving sci-fi concepts. The best family and children's movies are clever, well-plotted affairs and often have good ideas behind them. Spy Kids: All the Time in the World does not share those traits. Plus this movie carries on the awful trend of spies with babies not working.Most of the acting is sub-par. The child leads are bland and not natural actors; it's your typical weak-child acting, and they are no Chloe Mortez or Kodi Smit-McPhee. McHale was truly unconvincing as the father and again a typical bad performance in a bad family movie. Alba was a punch bag for gags to be bounded off on. Ricky Gervais seemed to be having fun, but I'm sure that's because he got a paycheck for saying bad lines in a recording studio. Piven is much the same, having fun and just being over the top.As movie fans we expect better from Rodriguez, who's done great movies like Sin City, From Dusk to Dawn and the "Mexico" Trilogy. Let's hope he is doing this movie so we can finally get Sin City 2.And I am sure you are asking the big question – what was the Scratch-and-Sniff card like? It was just a bunch of sickly sweet smells and simply just a gimmick. But you already knew that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-8

ur17571044

title: A unimaginative, pointless, cheap family film review: Hopes were not high coming into Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. It is the fourth film in a franchise suffering from diminishing returns, plus it was using the stupid idea of smell-o-vision. And this family film does not disappoint.Marissa Wilson (Jessica Alba) is a top OSS spy who retires after capturing a super villain, Tik Tok, and starts a family with her husband Wilbur (Joel McHale) and stepchildren Rebecca (Rowan Blanchard) and Cecil (Mason Cook). A year later a new villain has emerged, the Time Keeper, who speeds up time using the Armageddon Device to punish humanity for wasting time. Marissa is called back by the OSS director, Danger D'Amo (Jeremy Piven), to recapture Tik Tok which should lead them to the Time Keeper. But the Time Keeper sets out to kidnap Rebecca and Cecil because Rebecca has the only thing that could stop the Armageddon Device.There are many problems with Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. It's a cheap and unimaginative film where you could easily predict how they would play out. We have seen these story elements so many times before: the dad is a workaholic; there is animosity between step-mum and step-daughter as the step-mum tries to get closer to the children; the revelation of a lie, and so many others. The humour is crude, mostly poo, fart and vomit gags, basically the lowest common denominator which most children will easily outgrow. The other major route of humour is the barrage of puns: time puns, dog puns and smell puns – we're not stupid! The action is rudimentary; it is easy to expect much better from Robert Rodriguez who just uses poor CGI and quick cuts. And if you can't guess who the Time Keeper really is then you haven't seen enough movies. Spy Kids: All the Time in the World feels like it is a movie that is only made for a quick buck, not for any love of the material or the need to tell a good story.A movie aimed at children should be able to enliven their imaginations: Spy Kids: All the Time in the World is not going to do that. The artificial CGI scenes just look too fake for children to accept and buy into the action and the basic predictable plot will mean that children will not love it. Adults and parents will feel nothing but suffering when watching this movie. This is just a mindless movie with no imagination, which is ironic considering it makes a point that children make better spies because they have more imagination. Children are smart; they ask questions, see plot holes and come up with ideas involving sci-fi concepts. The best family and children's movies are clever, well-plotted affairs and often have good ideas behind them. Spy Kids: All the Time in the World does not share those traits. Plus this movie carries on the awful trend of spies with babies not working.Most of the acting is sub-par. The child leads are bland and not natural actors; it's your typical weak-child acting, and they are no Chloe Mortez or Kodi Smit-McPhee. McHale was truly unconvincing as the father and again a typical bad performance in a bad family movie. Alba was a punch bag for gags to be bounded off on. Ricky Gervais seemed to be having fun, but I'm sure that's because he got a paycheck for saying bad lines in a recording studio. Piven is much the same, having fun and just being over the top.As movie fans we expect better from Rodriguez, who's done great movies like Sin City, From Dusk to Dawn and the "Mexico" Trilogy. Let's hope he is doing this movie so we can finally get Sin City 2.And I am sure you are asking the big question – what was the Scratch-and-Sniff card like? It was just a bunch of sickly sweet smells and simply just a gimmick. But you already knew that.

Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D (2011) - Aroma-Scope is So Obnoxious These Days!

tt1517489

So, it's been a while since we have seen the "Spy Kids" in a movie, and the last time we saw them was in the 3-D movie "Game Over". Which was okay, but I was just there for the 3-D. Now, we get newer characters, a newer 3D technology, and we get "Spy Kids 4-D in Aroma-Scope". You know, "Aroma-Scope" is where they give you this card, so when a number pops out during the movie, you scratch the number on the card, and you smell it. That's pretty much it. But there are so many disgusting things in this movie that you just don't want to smell. I'm glad I didn't see this movie in Aroma-Scope, cause I honestly didn't want to sit through that torture. The 3-D is okay, though! Anyways, Jessica Alba, who is incredibly hot, is a retired mom who now is the stepmother to two crazy kids, one who is this cool kid with a hearing aid, and always bugs into situations, and then you have this annoying little girl pulling out all these pranks, and you just want her to shut the hell up. Their dad, played by Joel McHale, is a television star who doesn't have the time in the world to spend time with them, that's because this stupid villain named the Time Keeper, portrayed by Jeremy Piven, is trying to change time itself, and such bull-crap. So, they meet up with the original Spy Kids, Carmen and Juni, played by Alexa Vega, who's so hot today as an adult, and Daryl Sabara, who wasn't as good as he was as a child. They gear up, and they try to stop the Time Keeper. Then, we have our movie! What? I was just sitting there, listening to the jokes and gags, and they're just not funny. But the only thing funny about this movie was the talking dog. Ricky Gervais plays the voice of the talking dog, and he says jokes that are funny. The rest is just nonsense. Also, when you put Jeremy Piven, Jessica Alba, and Joel McHale in a movie like this, and they were all dumb, you just start to wish that they got good paychecks for this mess. Besides, the movie throughout was just so weird. Director Robert Rodriguez really wanted to make a family film for everybody, but all he made was a family film for nobody at all. That's why Rodriguez should never take movie ideas from his kids. The 4-D Aroma-Scope was super annoying, the cast looked embarrassed to be a part of this mess, the directing was childish, two hot chicks, and a dog that's super funny. All of that lead to a surprisingly annoying family flick. "Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D", in my review, "a lazy and childish excuse for cinematic technology".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-60

ur25627714

title: Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D (2011) - Aroma-Scope is So Obnoxious These Days! review: So, it's been a while since we have seen the "Spy Kids" in a movie, and the last time we saw them was in the 3-D movie "Game Over". Which was okay, but I was just there for the 3-D. Now, we get newer characters, a newer 3D technology, and we get "Spy Kids 4-D in Aroma-Scope". You know, "Aroma-Scope" is where they give you this card, so when a number pops out during the movie, you scratch the number on the card, and you smell it. That's pretty much it. But there are so many disgusting things in this movie that you just don't want to smell. I'm glad I didn't see this movie in Aroma-Scope, cause I honestly didn't want to sit through that torture. The 3-D is okay, though! Anyways, Jessica Alba, who is incredibly hot, is a retired mom who now is the stepmother to two crazy kids, one who is this cool kid with a hearing aid, and always bugs into situations, and then you have this annoying little girl pulling out all these pranks, and you just want her to shut the hell up. Their dad, played by Joel McHale, is a television star who doesn't have the time in the world to spend time with them, that's because this stupid villain named the Time Keeper, portrayed by Jeremy Piven, is trying to change time itself, and such bull-crap. So, they meet up with the original Spy Kids, Carmen and Juni, played by Alexa Vega, who's so hot today as an adult, and Daryl Sabara, who wasn't as good as he was as a child. They gear up, and they try to stop the Time Keeper. Then, we have our movie! What? I was just sitting there, listening to the jokes and gags, and they're just not funny. But the only thing funny about this movie was the talking dog. Ricky Gervais plays the voice of the talking dog, and he says jokes that are funny. The rest is just nonsense. Also, when you put Jeremy Piven, Jessica Alba, and Joel McHale in a movie like this, and they were all dumb, you just start to wish that they got good paychecks for this mess. Besides, the movie throughout was just so weird. Director Robert Rodriguez really wanted to make a family film for everybody, but all he made was a family film for nobody at all. That's why Rodriguez should never take movie ideas from his kids. The 4-D Aroma-Scope was super annoying, the cast looked embarrassed to be a part of this mess, the directing was childish, two hot chicks, and a dog that's super funny. All of that lead to a surprisingly annoying family flick. "Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D", in my review, "a lazy and childish excuse for cinematic technology".

Not bad, but please be more original.

tt1517489

Writer, director Robert Rodriguez, seems to like to entertain kids, or he's just bored, reviving a franchise that does need to be. Now I was entertained by the first two Spy Kids movies, but the third one was rip off of Tron(1982).Jessica Alba is amusing in her role, as a retired spy, wanting to become stepmother to her husbands(Joel McHale The Soup)kids, and having one of her own. But then an old enemy comes back in the picture, and she is called back into action. But will her husbands kids become the new spy kids?The two original spy kids make an appearance, they are Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara, and you know they are not kids anymore. But that was a big problem for me, cause I feel the films focus went more on them, and less on the new spy kids, it was like the new generation was making an appearance in there own movie. Jessica Alba was good, so was Joel Mchale. But they where convincing as a couple, now Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino was more convincing. But all in all an amusing film, had interesting effects. But go in this movie knowing, what too expect.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-13

ur4593705

title: Not bad, but please be more original. review: Writer, director Robert Rodriguez, seems to like to entertain kids, or he's just bored, reviving a franchise that does need to be. Now I was entertained by the first two Spy Kids movies, but the third one was rip off of Tron(1982).Jessica Alba is amusing in her role, as a retired spy, wanting to become stepmother to her husbands(Joel McHale The Soup)kids, and having one of her own. But then an old enemy comes back in the picture, and she is called back into action. But will her husbands kids become the new spy kids?The two original spy kids make an appearance, they are Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara, and you know they are not kids anymore. But that was a big problem for me, cause I feel the films focus went more on them, and less on the new spy kids, it was like the new generation was making an appearance in there own movie. Jessica Alba was good, so was Joel Mchale. But they where convincing as a couple, now Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino was more convincing. But all in all an amusing film, had interesting effects. But go in this movie knowing, what too expect.

Not Bad At All!

tt1517489

In one of the most surprising happenings that occurred to me, I found out that I actually liked the fourth installment in the Spy Kids franchise for the most part. The first two films are definitely better but this is way better than the horrid third film. I guess I liked this film because it brought back so many memories from my childhood. That was true when Carmen and Juni appeared on screen. I know the acting was cheesy and there were plenty of potty humor, but I couldn't bring myself to hate this film.Robert Rodriguez's film is about an evil guy who is bent on making time go faster so a retired spy and her kids are recruited to turn time back to normal.As I mentioned earlier, the acting is kind of cheesy. Jessica Alba is pretty good and is quite nice on the eyes. The kids are decent even though they say some weird stuff. Ricky Gervais makes an awesome dog with his voice.Overall, this is a decent film but I can see why many people despised it. Despite my thumbs up, I think it's time for this franchise to hit the bucket as I can see some wear and tear. This film wasn't even asked for in the first place but it's a nice distraction for the kids. It doesn't have the great visuals as the earlier films, but it wont matter to the kids. I rate this film 7/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517489/reviews-74

ur17646017

title: Not Bad At All! review: In one of the most surprising happenings that occurred to me, I found out that I actually liked the fourth installment in the Spy Kids franchise for the most part. The first two films are definitely better but this is way better than the horrid third film. I guess I liked this film because it brought back so many memories from my childhood. That was true when Carmen and Juni appeared on screen. I know the acting was cheesy and there were plenty of potty humor, but I couldn't bring myself to hate this film.Robert Rodriguez's film is about an evil guy who is bent on making time go faster so a retired spy and her kids are recruited to turn time back to normal.As I mentioned earlier, the acting is kind of cheesy. Jessica Alba is pretty good and is quite nice on the eyes. The kids are decent even though they say some weird stuff. Ricky Gervais makes an awesome dog with his voice.Overall, this is a decent film but I can see why many people despised it. Despite my thumbs up, I think it's time for this franchise to hit the bucket as I can see some wear and tear. This film wasn't even asked for in the first place but it's a nice distraction for the kids. It doesn't have the great visuals as the earlier films, but it wont matter to the kids. I rate this film 7/10.

The CGI is a little bit too much and takes away from the story

tt0442933

I remember a year ago seeing the trailer for Beowulf and to be honest, nothing seemed too special about it. I know the poem, lucky enough I never had to read it, my friends said it was boring, so never found interest enough to read it on my own. I saw Beowulf on DVD for rental and figured just to go ahead and check it out. So I watched the film this morning and honestly, I wasn't that impressed with it. The story itself was an interesting one and I think I might read the poem after all, although from what I'm reading from here on IMDb, the movie wasn't all that accurate to the poem itself. But my main problem with the film is the CGI, I know this is a fantasy type of film, but Lord of the Rings was able to pull off a fantasy type of feel with a live action film. The bad looking effects just take over what could've been a great epic film.Hrothgar is the king of his Denmark land, but there are demons that are attacking him and his people. He and his soldiers are not able to defeat the demon, so they send for a hero. Thankfully a hero is on his way, he is called Beowulf, I like to call him Beobuff. He has come to save the day with his men and they do succeed in killing one of the demons. Unfortunately, the demon's mom does not take this so lightly and offers Beowulf a deal in exchange for a new son. But things take a dark turn when Hrothgar knows a little more about the woman/demon who wanted a son.Beowulf is an alright movie, seriously though, would I recommend it? Not really, the story was wonderful and magical, but the way the film was made and the cast was not what I would've done if I created the movie. I think it would have been a better idea to use unknown actors, because we have these incredible actors who are aways a pleasure to watch on the screen, but seriously, on Beowulf, this was not their film. The CGI is way too over the top and looks very fake, I didn't enjoy the "eye candy". If you read the poem, go ahead and check the film out, if you haven't, you might not get into it.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-388

ur1293485

title: The CGI is a little bit too much and takes away from the story review: I remember a year ago seeing the trailer for Beowulf and to be honest, nothing seemed too special about it. I know the poem, lucky enough I never had to read it, my friends said it was boring, so never found interest enough to read it on my own. I saw Beowulf on DVD for rental and figured just to go ahead and check it out. So I watched the film this morning and honestly, I wasn't that impressed with it. The story itself was an interesting one and I think I might read the poem after all, although from what I'm reading from here on IMDb, the movie wasn't all that accurate to the poem itself. But my main problem with the film is the CGI, I know this is a fantasy type of film, but Lord of the Rings was able to pull off a fantasy type of feel with a live action film. The bad looking effects just take over what could've been a great epic film.Hrothgar is the king of his Denmark land, but there are demons that are attacking him and his people. He and his soldiers are not able to defeat the demon, so they send for a hero. Thankfully a hero is on his way, he is called Beowulf, I like to call him Beobuff. He has come to save the day with his men and they do succeed in killing one of the demons. Unfortunately, the demon's mom does not take this so lightly and offers Beowulf a deal in exchange for a new son. But things take a dark turn when Hrothgar knows a little more about the woman/demon who wanted a son.Beowulf is an alright movie, seriously though, would I recommend it? Not really, the story was wonderful and magical, but the way the film was made and the cast was not what I would've done if I created the movie. I think it would have been a better idea to use unknown actors, because we have these incredible actors who are aways a pleasure to watch on the screen, but seriously, on Beowulf, this was not their film. The CGI is way too over the top and looks very fake, I didn't enjoy the "eye candy". If you read the poem, go ahead and check the film out, if you haven't, you might not get into it.5/10

Failed epic falls short of 300 standard

tt0442933

Beowulf wants badly to be an epic movie, with its heroes and kings, its wondrous vistas, its dragons, and its evil demons, and it certainly is a pretty fair film. It's sort of a combination of 300 and The Polar Express and leans heavily on CGI effects to sell itself. This usually works, but as with Polar Express the facial expressions of the humans look more like a snazzy video game than anything approaching realistic.Most Americans learned about the tale of Beowulf in high school, about how the young hero slayed the creature Grendel and became a legend. Here, Beowulf's tale is expanded and clarified; what really happened when he strode into that cave to take on the murderous demon? Turns out that Grendel's got a mom, and she's not the forgive-and-forget kind, and before you know it, Beowulf's sliding down a slippery slope of his own device.Voiced by Ray Winstone, the youthful Beowulf and his band of warriors arrive in Denmark to slay the beast that's been terrorizing the towns. King Hrothgar (Anthony Perkins) has offered half the riches of his kingdom to whomever can lift their curse. Grendel does come, and after slaying some of Beowulf's men (including biting off a head and chewing it), he's finally taken down by Beowulf himself with his bare arms - but that's just the beginning of Beowulf's troubles, as Grendel's mom is a bit unhappy.The voice characterizations are top notch. It's good to see the gifted Winstone get some work as the hero, because he doesn't really fit the mold of matinée idol; he's more of a craggy, rough-looking character. But here, he's as smooth as Russell Crowe, thanks to the wonders of CGI. Hopkins is his usual Anthony Hopkins self (sorry, I mean Sir Anthony), lending gravitas that a king should have. Jolie, it should be noted, was a bit unhappy with the resulting CGI for her role, which showed perhaps a bit more skin than the actress had intended to have shown. (Sure, it's not actually her body, but it looks like her, so...) But she's silkily cruel as the water demon out to avenge her son. Offering stout support as always are Brendan Gleeson and John Malkovich, as Beowulf's right-hand man and the king's top commander, respectively. Robin Wright Penn is merely okay in a rather important role as the queen; amazingly, she doesn't look nearly as gorgeous as the real-life Wright Penn does.But it's the CGI of the humans that I found a little off putting. Rather than looking seamless in a pseudo-comic-book style, as in 300, the people here look a bit creepy, as if they were originally created to appear in some cheesy 3-D porn. I mean some cheesy Flash animation. As with the earliest Pixar films, the animation of humans just doesn't look right; with The Polar Express (directed by Robert Zemeckis, as was Beowulf), the people looked almost creepy and lacked a large range of expressions.Beowulf is an exciting action movie and contains plenty of intense, well-animated combat scenes, but it falls a little short of being the technical marvel or full-bore sweeping epic that it wants to be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-377

ur0543054

title: Failed epic falls short of 300 standard review: Beowulf wants badly to be an epic movie, with its heroes and kings, its wondrous vistas, its dragons, and its evil demons, and it certainly is a pretty fair film. It's sort of a combination of 300 and The Polar Express and leans heavily on CGI effects to sell itself. This usually works, but as with Polar Express the facial expressions of the humans look more like a snazzy video game than anything approaching realistic.Most Americans learned about the tale of Beowulf in high school, about how the young hero slayed the creature Grendel and became a legend. Here, Beowulf's tale is expanded and clarified; what really happened when he strode into that cave to take on the murderous demon? Turns out that Grendel's got a mom, and she's not the forgive-and-forget kind, and before you know it, Beowulf's sliding down a slippery slope of his own device.Voiced by Ray Winstone, the youthful Beowulf and his band of warriors arrive in Denmark to slay the beast that's been terrorizing the towns. King Hrothgar (Anthony Perkins) has offered half the riches of his kingdom to whomever can lift their curse. Grendel does come, and after slaying some of Beowulf's men (including biting off a head and chewing it), he's finally taken down by Beowulf himself with his bare arms - but that's just the beginning of Beowulf's troubles, as Grendel's mom is a bit unhappy.The voice characterizations are top notch. It's good to see the gifted Winstone get some work as the hero, because he doesn't really fit the mold of matinée idol; he's more of a craggy, rough-looking character. But here, he's as smooth as Russell Crowe, thanks to the wonders of CGI. Hopkins is his usual Anthony Hopkins self (sorry, I mean Sir Anthony), lending gravitas that a king should have. Jolie, it should be noted, was a bit unhappy with the resulting CGI for her role, which showed perhaps a bit more skin than the actress had intended to have shown. (Sure, it's not actually her body, but it looks like her, so...) But she's silkily cruel as the water demon out to avenge her son. Offering stout support as always are Brendan Gleeson and John Malkovich, as Beowulf's right-hand man and the king's top commander, respectively. Robin Wright Penn is merely okay in a rather important role as the queen; amazingly, she doesn't look nearly as gorgeous as the real-life Wright Penn does.But it's the CGI of the humans that I found a little off putting. Rather than looking seamless in a pseudo-comic-book style, as in 300, the people here look a bit creepy, as if they were originally created to appear in some cheesy 3-D porn. I mean some cheesy Flash animation. As with the earliest Pixar films, the animation of humans just doesn't look right; with The Polar Express (directed by Robert Zemeckis, as was Beowulf), the people looked almost creepy and lacked a large range of expressions.Beowulf is an exciting action movie and contains plenty of intense, well-animated combat scenes, but it falls a little short of being the technical marvel or full-bore sweeping epic that it wants to be.

Dull and stupid when it isn't just unnecessarily disgusting, Beowulf is a puerile and aimless film without an audience nor much of a brain.

tt0442933

I think amidst the corny script; odd looking human-being/CGI animated character processing and daft action sequences, the makers of Beowulf had most fun rendering and toying with Angelina Jolie's semi-naked body as she slithers out of a pool of water in some cave half way through the film. They had more fun rendering it and patching stuff over what I presume to have been a green-screen suited Jolie than I did watching it – like Halle Berry's weaving; swaying; slinking; decked up like a fetishists wet-dream Catwoman from a 2004 film of the same name, the most remarkable thing about the whole sequence is the sense of just not caring what it is that's being presented to you on screen, despite the promise on paper of something slightly eye-catching. Such is the reaction to the text, or indeed the particular bringing to life of the text, that the people making it had a better time in making and messing around with it than we did watching it.Robert Zemeckis can often be a curious director, his blending of content fit for both grown-ups and kids alike have seen him take on an array of past projects; ranging from the typically noir-infused shenanigans of 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit? which blended this with the persistent inclusion of cartoon characters; to the romp that was 1985's Back to the Future, yes, a somewhat child orientated time travel romp about a high-schooler, but one that saw a younger edition of the lead's mother fall in love with him: a premise, I read, deemed too risqué by Disney at the time whom promptly rejected the project. This, as well as 1994's Forrest Gump; a film that shoots along at a merry old pace under a grandeur of sweet natured comedy but taking time to encompass some pretty adult orientated material – most of us saw said film when we were younger, but how many of us really understood or knew what was going on during Jenny's sequences of downward spiralling through drug addiction and all things nasty? But I like these three examples, and Zemeckis' direction in his ability to mould all these things together worked.Then comes 2007's Beowulf, a film too adult most of the time for younger viewers in its scares; humour; imagery and sexual innuendo but just too adolescent at others for adults in its stupefying action sequences; bodily function orientated humour and general sense of childishness. Unlike past attempts at this hybridising, Zemeckis falls well short and by the time the credits ran, I just felt embarrassed for all involved. Based on a centuries old poem-come-story, but penned by way of Pulp Fiction co-writer Roger Avary, the film covers the exploits of Ray Winstone's Viking warrior Beowulf in the 6th Century, as a sort of one time mercenary whose skills are recognised enough so as to pass on into royalty. In Denmark, a drinking hall full of individuals led by Hrothgar (Hopkins) sing and display characteristics of lust, gluttony and greed as food is devoured; riches casually distributed and women rendered prizes as they're leered over. Enter twelve foot or so man/demon Grendel (Glover), who promptly massacres all involved before retiring to the cavern in which the aforementioned Jolie, his mother, resides. This raises the question as to whether his mother appears in front of him in the same form as she does to Winstone later on. If so, it's no wonder the kid's got issues.In true pantomime fashion, "We need a hero!" is the cry. Cut to man of the hour and title Beowulf, standing nonchalantly on a boat in a terrible storm; those around him struggling to deal with the conditions; but Beowulf merely cackles at the wind and rain, establishing in a very basic manner a sense of masculinity and fearlessness. "I've come to kill yor' monsta'" so says Beowulf upon arrival, and the ensuing fight with Grendel is a would-be interesting sequence that brings you right out of the picture by persistently reminding you of the Austin Powers censoring sequence as naked individuals waltz around in a film that doesn't allow nudity. As the film rolls on, it wants to think that it has a fascinating and tense pot-boiler up its sleeve involving Beowulf and Grendel's mother after a meeting and agreement between the two, but the resulting suspense born out of this item that's gone on for years is about as enthralling as watching a CGI axe meekly splash down into a shallow puddle on a gravelly beach. Where the film ought to be tense and unnerving, it merely carries an uncanniness born out of observing these semi-CGI Vikings mope around in next to nothing on.Throughout, since I'm nowhere near interested in what's going on, I wondered if other people in other nations around the world existed, and if they did, I wondered if they have too had any issues with monsters and beasties terrorising them. But in essentially aiming the film at a younger based audience, Neanderthal attitudes towards women and the general behaviour of most of the characters are made to look 'funny', as this filtering through crisp animation is played out in what is a rather disgusting; ill-advised and irresponsible display of film-making on Zemeckis' behalf. Shame, as intense and adult dramas such as Cast Away are not beyond the reach of the man; in the meantime I guess we'll have to settle for bizarre amalgamations designed to make money and con people into thinking they're seeing something more interesting than what it is by way of special effects and three dimensions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-497

ur0855231

title: Dull and stupid when it isn't just unnecessarily disgusting, Beowulf is a puerile and aimless film without an audience nor much of a brain. review: I think amidst the corny script; odd looking human-being/CGI animated character processing and daft action sequences, the makers of Beowulf had most fun rendering and toying with Angelina Jolie's semi-naked body as she slithers out of a pool of water in some cave half way through the film. They had more fun rendering it and patching stuff over what I presume to have been a green-screen suited Jolie than I did watching it – like Halle Berry's weaving; swaying; slinking; decked up like a fetishists wet-dream Catwoman from a 2004 film of the same name, the most remarkable thing about the whole sequence is the sense of just not caring what it is that's being presented to you on screen, despite the promise on paper of something slightly eye-catching. Such is the reaction to the text, or indeed the particular bringing to life of the text, that the people making it had a better time in making and messing around with it than we did watching it.Robert Zemeckis can often be a curious director, his blending of content fit for both grown-ups and kids alike have seen him take on an array of past projects; ranging from the typically noir-infused shenanigans of 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit? which blended this with the persistent inclusion of cartoon characters; to the romp that was 1985's Back to the Future, yes, a somewhat child orientated time travel romp about a high-schooler, but one that saw a younger edition of the lead's mother fall in love with him: a premise, I read, deemed too risqué by Disney at the time whom promptly rejected the project. This, as well as 1994's Forrest Gump; a film that shoots along at a merry old pace under a grandeur of sweet natured comedy but taking time to encompass some pretty adult orientated material – most of us saw said film when we were younger, but how many of us really understood or knew what was going on during Jenny's sequences of downward spiralling through drug addiction and all things nasty? But I like these three examples, and Zemeckis' direction in his ability to mould all these things together worked.Then comes 2007's Beowulf, a film too adult most of the time for younger viewers in its scares; humour; imagery and sexual innuendo but just too adolescent at others for adults in its stupefying action sequences; bodily function orientated humour and general sense of childishness. Unlike past attempts at this hybridising, Zemeckis falls well short and by the time the credits ran, I just felt embarrassed for all involved. Based on a centuries old poem-come-story, but penned by way of Pulp Fiction co-writer Roger Avary, the film covers the exploits of Ray Winstone's Viking warrior Beowulf in the 6th Century, as a sort of one time mercenary whose skills are recognised enough so as to pass on into royalty. In Denmark, a drinking hall full of individuals led by Hrothgar (Hopkins) sing and display characteristics of lust, gluttony and greed as food is devoured; riches casually distributed and women rendered prizes as they're leered over. Enter twelve foot or so man/demon Grendel (Glover), who promptly massacres all involved before retiring to the cavern in which the aforementioned Jolie, his mother, resides. This raises the question as to whether his mother appears in front of him in the same form as she does to Winstone later on. If so, it's no wonder the kid's got issues.In true pantomime fashion, "We need a hero!" is the cry. Cut to man of the hour and title Beowulf, standing nonchalantly on a boat in a terrible storm; those around him struggling to deal with the conditions; but Beowulf merely cackles at the wind and rain, establishing in a very basic manner a sense of masculinity and fearlessness. "I've come to kill yor' monsta'" so says Beowulf upon arrival, and the ensuing fight with Grendel is a would-be interesting sequence that brings you right out of the picture by persistently reminding you of the Austin Powers censoring sequence as naked individuals waltz around in a film that doesn't allow nudity. As the film rolls on, it wants to think that it has a fascinating and tense pot-boiler up its sleeve involving Beowulf and Grendel's mother after a meeting and agreement between the two, but the resulting suspense born out of this item that's gone on for years is about as enthralling as watching a CGI axe meekly splash down into a shallow puddle on a gravelly beach. Where the film ought to be tense and unnerving, it merely carries an uncanniness born out of observing these semi-CGI Vikings mope around in next to nothing on.Throughout, since I'm nowhere near interested in what's going on, I wondered if other people in other nations around the world existed, and if they did, I wondered if they have too had any issues with monsters and beasties terrorising them. But in essentially aiming the film at a younger based audience, Neanderthal attitudes towards women and the general behaviour of most of the characters are made to look 'funny', as this filtering through crisp animation is played out in what is a rather disgusting; ill-advised and irresponsible display of film-making on Zemeckis' behalf. Shame, as intense and adult dramas such as Cast Away are not beyond the reach of the man; in the meantime I guess we'll have to settle for bizarre amalgamations designed to make money and con people into thinking they're seeing something more interesting than what it is by way of special effects and three dimensions.

good computer graphics but doesn't stay true to the poem

tt0442933

The computer graphics in this film reminded me of a video game. They are good and look realistic for the most part. And since you aren't dealing with real actors, it made the fighting scenes a little more adventurous. I thought the sexual jokes weren't needed, I mean they are cartoon characters.In the movie, Beowulf is ready to accept King Hrothgar's challenge to kill Grendel. Grendel looks more human in the movie than usually depicted in other films. So, Beowulf fights him naked for some reason, because that is not in the poem. So, there is always some strategic placed object when showing Beowulf from the front or a dark shadow. I don't get why they had him take off his pants. He kills Grendel but then is seduced by his mother, whom is voiced by the beautiful Anjelina Jolie. Her character is drawn to resemble Jolie's face. He makes a deal with the mother, and is given the Kingdom. Some how the a charm was placed on Hrothgar and he kills himself. I don't think that was in the poem.One day, Beowulf's son shows up in the form of a dragon. What!!! How does that happen. So, the last part is him battling a dragon.FINAL VERDICT: Pretty good, I recommend it if you like adventure movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-471

ur1773414

title: good computer graphics but doesn't stay true to the poem review: The computer graphics in this film reminded me of a video game. They are good and look realistic for the most part. And since you aren't dealing with real actors, it made the fighting scenes a little more adventurous. I thought the sexual jokes weren't needed, I mean they are cartoon characters.In the movie, Beowulf is ready to accept King Hrothgar's challenge to kill Grendel. Grendel looks more human in the movie than usually depicted in other films. So, Beowulf fights him naked for some reason, because that is not in the poem. So, there is always some strategic placed object when showing Beowulf from the front or a dark shadow. I don't get why they had him take off his pants. He kills Grendel but then is seduced by his mother, whom is voiced by the beautiful Anjelina Jolie. Her character is drawn to resemble Jolie's face. He makes a deal with the mother, and is given the Kingdom. Some how the a charm was placed on Hrothgar and he kills himself. I don't think that was in the poem.One day, Beowulf's son shows up in the form of a dragon. What!!! How does that happen. So, the last part is him battling a dragon.FINAL VERDICT: Pretty good, I recommend it if you like adventure movies.

Be gone, oh rotten movie! Hollowman and Alien vs. Predator! - you have company.

tt0442933

Remember when your English teacher in high school or college told the class that one of their assignments was to read Beowulf? Not exactly the most popular work of literature. Really, how many people out there actually had, or have, any interest in reading Beowulf? Be honest. It would not be unreasonable to say that Beowulf is not on the list of the world's most popular literary works. Yet Hollywood, in its infinite quest for profit, decided that this is the kind of story that can be transposed onto the big screen and that there is an audience for this kind of story, with its heroes and villains and monsters and ... well you get the point. So Hollywood concocted this movie, part science fiction, part science fantasy, part epic and COMPLETE JUNK. Welcome to the world of special effects. After watching this movie, one can reasonably ask: Why have actors? Why not just special effects and who cares about the story? If the story is idiotic ... who cares? Just throw in some special effects. If the dialog is laughable? Who cares? That can be cured with special effects. If the plot is ridiculous, again, who cares? Special effects can do the trick. There are scenes in this movie that provoke outright laughter. If this movie accurately portrays the level of civilization in Europe circa 6th century A.D., then it is a miracle that people actually survived. If you believe this movie, then the people, particularly the men, were actually uglier than the monsters, except, of course, for Beowulf who, of course, is an Adonis while all the other guys are a bunch of overweight gin-guzzling jerks or skinny sniveling dorks who are too stupid to do anything except let themselves be kicked around or sacrificed for the hero, who, of course, has sex with beautiful women. This raises another point: In the 6th century why are the men so ugly while the women are so beautiful? It's like their two different species, with the men being like links between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man (except of course for Beowulf who is perfection personified - duh!) and the women being more like a bunch of giggling Aphrodites than poverty-stricken 6th century females just trying to survive. (I wonder what kind of odors women emitted in the 6th century? After all, bathing was not one of their priorities.) What about the female of females in the movie, the super-Monster, who is also a mother, yes, A MOTHER, played, surprise, surprise, by Angelina Jolie! Some super-monster! There are mothers and there are MOTHERS and Ms. Jolie plays A MOTHER!!! If Ms. Jolie's mother character is supposed to be a monster, than bring her on because any monster that looks like the beautiful and talented Angelina Jolie is the kind of monster that one should have at home, or at work, or wherever. One other point: There are parts of this movie where certain characters speak a language that be best described as gibberish. It would have been helpful if those parts of the movie had included subtitles. Then again, maybe the entire script should have been in gibberish. As a matter of fact, this movie would have been far more interesting if the entire script had been written in Old English - without subtitles. Why have Beowulf speaking fluent English? Why have Beowulf speaking at all? What it comes down to is this: this movie is pretentious junk that tries to be part Hamlet, part Troy, and even part Alexander (the latter two not the greatest movies but light years better than this waste of celluloid) but actually is a hyped-up pseudo-cartoon version of a medieval story that probably no person has read in its entirety in maybe a thousand years but which someone in Hollywood believed could be transformed into something that today's contemporary audience would buy, meaning (must it be said? Yes!) - SPECIAL EFFECTS!!!! - and in 3D!!!! Hollywood made 3D movies in the 1950s - for kids and back then the movies cost a quarter and nobody made any big deal about it. Now 3D is supposed to be something special. Yeah, right. Leave Beowulf in the the book where he belongs so that the lone person who decides to actually read the book can use their imagination to visualize the story instead of having to rely on Hollywood's version - which is crass, banal and guided not by the quest for artistic excellence but by the quest for the almighty buck.This movie is so bad that it makes Phantom of the Opera (movie version) seem like a 10-star classic. You can take special effects just so far, but special effects cannot replace a story, no way. This movie is about phantasmagorical events revolving around themes such as heroism, selflessness and other high personal virtues. Okay, but the movie approaches these themes by catering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence to dramatize these points. If Beowulf is the best example of English literature from the Middle Ages, then the middle ages were the dark ages indeed.Now here's an idea: Why not take Godzilla, King Kong, Rodan, Mothra, the Giant Mantis, the Predator (with the infra-red vision and the a-bomb strapped to its arm)and the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and put them on an island with Beowulf and see what happens? All special effects. NO STORY NECESSARY.Anthony Hopkins's presence in this movie is a travesty, a joke. It's not his fault. It's a gig and a paycheck, and he didn't create the role, he just acts it. But to have this fine actor going about half-naked would have been like Hamlet going about with his pants down while engaged in a soliloquy. Please, be gone, oh rotten movie, go to DVD-land with all the other forgettable rejects.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-227

ur6458242

title: Be gone, oh rotten movie! Hollowman and Alien vs. Predator! - you have company. review: Remember when your English teacher in high school or college told the class that one of their assignments was to read Beowulf? Not exactly the most popular work of literature. Really, how many people out there actually had, or have, any interest in reading Beowulf? Be honest. It would not be unreasonable to say that Beowulf is not on the list of the world's most popular literary works. Yet Hollywood, in its infinite quest for profit, decided that this is the kind of story that can be transposed onto the big screen and that there is an audience for this kind of story, with its heroes and villains and monsters and ... well you get the point. So Hollywood concocted this movie, part science fiction, part science fantasy, part epic and COMPLETE JUNK. Welcome to the world of special effects. After watching this movie, one can reasonably ask: Why have actors? Why not just special effects and who cares about the story? If the story is idiotic ... who cares? Just throw in some special effects. If the dialog is laughable? Who cares? That can be cured with special effects. If the plot is ridiculous, again, who cares? Special effects can do the trick. There are scenes in this movie that provoke outright laughter. If this movie accurately portrays the level of civilization in Europe circa 6th century A.D., then it is a miracle that people actually survived. If you believe this movie, then the people, particularly the men, were actually uglier than the monsters, except, of course, for Beowulf who, of course, is an Adonis while all the other guys are a bunch of overweight gin-guzzling jerks or skinny sniveling dorks who are too stupid to do anything except let themselves be kicked around or sacrificed for the hero, who, of course, has sex with beautiful women. This raises another point: In the 6th century why are the men so ugly while the women are so beautiful? It's like their two different species, with the men being like links between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man (except of course for Beowulf who is perfection personified - duh!) and the women being more like a bunch of giggling Aphrodites than poverty-stricken 6th century females just trying to survive. (I wonder what kind of odors women emitted in the 6th century? After all, bathing was not one of their priorities.) What about the female of females in the movie, the super-Monster, who is also a mother, yes, A MOTHER, played, surprise, surprise, by Angelina Jolie! Some super-monster! There are mothers and there are MOTHERS and Ms. Jolie plays A MOTHER!!! If Ms. Jolie's mother character is supposed to be a monster, than bring her on because any monster that looks like the beautiful and talented Angelina Jolie is the kind of monster that one should have at home, or at work, or wherever. One other point: There are parts of this movie where certain characters speak a language that be best described as gibberish. It would have been helpful if those parts of the movie had included subtitles. Then again, maybe the entire script should have been in gibberish. As a matter of fact, this movie would have been far more interesting if the entire script had been written in Old English - without subtitles. Why have Beowulf speaking fluent English? Why have Beowulf speaking at all? What it comes down to is this: this movie is pretentious junk that tries to be part Hamlet, part Troy, and even part Alexander (the latter two not the greatest movies but light years better than this waste of celluloid) but actually is a hyped-up pseudo-cartoon version of a medieval story that probably no person has read in its entirety in maybe a thousand years but which someone in Hollywood believed could be transformed into something that today's contemporary audience would buy, meaning (must it be said? Yes!) - SPECIAL EFFECTS!!!! - and in 3D!!!! Hollywood made 3D movies in the 1950s - for kids and back then the movies cost a quarter and nobody made any big deal about it. Now 3D is supposed to be something special. Yeah, right. Leave Beowulf in the the book where he belongs so that the lone person who decides to actually read the book can use their imagination to visualize the story instead of having to rely on Hollywood's version - which is crass, banal and guided not by the quest for artistic excellence but by the quest for the almighty buck.This movie is so bad that it makes Phantom of the Opera (movie version) seem like a 10-star classic. You can take special effects just so far, but special effects cannot replace a story, no way. This movie is about phantasmagorical events revolving around themes such as heroism, selflessness and other high personal virtues. Okay, but the movie approaches these themes by catering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence to dramatize these points. If Beowulf is the best example of English literature from the Middle Ages, then the middle ages were the dark ages indeed.Now here's an idea: Why not take Godzilla, King Kong, Rodan, Mothra, the Giant Mantis, the Predator (with the infra-red vision and the a-bomb strapped to its arm)and the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and put them on an island with Beowulf and see what happens? All special effects. NO STORY NECESSARY.Anthony Hopkins's presence in this movie is a travesty, a joke. It's not his fault. It's a gig and a paycheck, and he didn't create the role, he just acts it. But to have this fine actor going about half-naked would have been like Hamlet going about with his pants down while engaged in a soliloquy. Please, be gone, oh rotten movie, go to DVD-land with all the other forgettable rejects.

A weak attempt at story telling; the film is utterly laughable (in both good and bad ways).

tt0442933

Bob Zemickis' Beowulf tells the story of the legendary warrior who comes to free a Mead Hall of a despicable monster known as Grendel. The final product that is Beowulf is a modern day Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Beowulf walks around naked, it sets off a chain of movements in the Mead Hall to hide his bits and pieces, from candle sticks to pointy helmets and everything in between.For those of you who read the book in high school, you'll immediately notice that the narrative has been changed to offer more spectacle than narrative. And that is exactly the point with Motion Capture CGI (MoCap for short). These films aren't supposed to be about the writing or the directing; the film is about spectacle, pure and simple. And in trying to explain MoCap there needs to be an understanding of the oft-misunderstood phenomenon of spectacle versus narrative.Spectacle can be defined as something that can be seen or viewed, especially something of a remarkable or impressive nature. So we're talking about something that exists for the sake of "showing" the audience something as opposed to the narrative of a film (God forbid the movie actually tries to tell a story, right?) Narrative on the other hand is a narrated account; a story. Simple enough; the narrative can be manipulated depending on the film. Is it a story about people? Is the film a historical event? The point is that narrative is about telling the audience something and taking them through the journey of story telling. Spectacle is more about leaving your brain at home type cinema, whereas a narrative based film is considerable more highbrow. Now Wikipedia tells me that spectacle can be both high brow and low brow; since spectacle on par with Chinese acrobats is something that is difficult to duplicate, and theatre sets a la The Spanish Opera is in a league on its own.Sadly enough, the last 100 years of American history tells us that spectacle in America leans toward (and usually spills over into) the "freak show" type. The gaudy, trash, and downright repulsive shows traveling America: shows involving dead bodies, public sex acts, and the world's fattest man category. People who take part in these spectacles are usually lesser educated and incapable of understanding the more engaging, involving, and thought provoking cinema; cinema that is becoming scarce today.Beowulf plays right into the hands of the dim witted spectacle seekers. But oddly enough, there was nothing in the film that was over the top or original in terms of the spectacle. The film was one big excuse to show the audience what it looks like when you animate sex and violence and try to pass it off as cinema. Keep in mind, Angelina was never naked (she's quite overrated to begin with). A million and one nodes attached to your body so the computer knows what you look like, even naked. Even that couldn't save Beowulf.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-306

ur12396918

title: A weak attempt at story telling; the film is utterly laughable (in both good and bad ways). review: Bob Zemickis' Beowulf tells the story of the legendary warrior who comes to free a Mead Hall of a despicable monster known as Grendel. The final product that is Beowulf is a modern day Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Beowulf walks around naked, it sets off a chain of movements in the Mead Hall to hide his bits and pieces, from candle sticks to pointy helmets and everything in between.For those of you who read the book in high school, you'll immediately notice that the narrative has been changed to offer more spectacle than narrative. And that is exactly the point with Motion Capture CGI (MoCap for short). These films aren't supposed to be about the writing or the directing; the film is about spectacle, pure and simple. And in trying to explain MoCap there needs to be an understanding of the oft-misunderstood phenomenon of spectacle versus narrative.Spectacle can be defined as something that can be seen or viewed, especially something of a remarkable or impressive nature. So we're talking about something that exists for the sake of "showing" the audience something as opposed to the narrative of a film (God forbid the movie actually tries to tell a story, right?) Narrative on the other hand is a narrated account; a story. Simple enough; the narrative can be manipulated depending on the film. Is it a story about people? Is the film a historical event? The point is that narrative is about telling the audience something and taking them through the journey of story telling. Spectacle is more about leaving your brain at home type cinema, whereas a narrative based film is considerable more highbrow. Now Wikipedia tells me that spectacle can be both high brow and low brow; since spectacle on par with Chinese acrobats is something that is difficult to duplicate, and theatre sets a la The Spanish Opera is in a league on its own.Sadly enough, the last 100 years of American history tells us that spectacle in America leans toward (and usually spills over into) the "freak show" type. The gaudy, trash, and downright repulsive shows traveling America: shows involving dead bodies, public sex acts, and the world's fattest man category. People who take part in these spectacles are usually lesser educated and incapable of understanding the more engaging, involving, and thought provoking cinema; cinema that is becoming scarce today.Beowulf plays right into the hands of the dim witted spectacle seekers. But oddly enough, there was nothing in the film that was over the top or original in terms of the spectacle. The film was one big excuse to show the audience what it looks like when you animate sex and violence and try to pass it off as cinema. Keep in mind, Angelina was never naked (she's quite overrated to begin with). A million and one nodes attached to your body so the computer knows what you look like, even naked. Even that couldn't save Beowulf.

Beowulf

tt0442933

Beowulf is an animated film based on an old English poem thought to be written between the 8th and 11th century and nobody has ever known who the author was and people still do not know, but the poem has become very popular throughout the years and has been the basis for other films as well. The film is animated using a technique called motion capture where the film's directors would film action and things in motion by the film's actors and later animate it over with 3 dimensional animation. The same technique was used a couple of years ago in the film The Polar Express also by Beowulf director Robert Zemeckis. The film takes place in late 500 AD in England and is about a village that is terrorized by a monster named Grendel who frequently comes to the surface of the Earth and kills whoever is being merry and making music. King Hrothgar sends for a warrior named Beowulf to slay Grendel and after doing so, Beowulf soon becomes king of the land, but a lie that he has covered up with his famous battle will soon come back to haunt him and the kingdom. I think because of the animation and visual style of the film and also because it's story and action sequences that people will compare this film to this year's earlier film 300. While I gave 300 a pretty favourable review on this site mostly because of the visuals I felt that the visuals were better than the story and film itself, but luckily Beowulf uses great animation and visuals along with a truly exciting and entertaining story. Beowulf is a beautiful film to look at because of it's animation and I thought the story was full of action and excitement which was enough to capture my interest for the film's length. I have always been into mythology and stories of that kind, so for that reason Beowulf also intrigued me even more and I think that today there is a large audience into the sword battle and monster films, so I think this film should appeal to many and with it's great pace it will surely entertain. The only thing I had a problem with in this film was a few lines of dialogue that the screenwriters put in that were unintentionally funny in a crude kind of way when I don't think they were particularly meant to be, so for that reason I don't think those few scenes really fit in and I noticed the audience laughed like I did at said moments, so I knew I wasn't the only one with this complaint. Those lines and scenes just didn't suit a serious film like this. However this is only a real mild complaint while the rest of the movie I enjoyed immensely because of the fascinating story, the non stop action and the visual beauty of the animation. This is one of the best animated films of the year so far and I think if people were to ignore those few scenes and lines of dialogue I mentioned above then they should be in for a good time as well as a visually stunning experience as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-99

ur1471623

title: Beowulf review: Beowulf is an animated film based on an old English poem thought to be written between the 8th and 11th century and nobody has ever known who the author was and people still do not know, but the poem has become very popular throughout the years and has been the basis for other films as well. The film is animated using a technique called motion capture where the film's directors would film action and things in motion by the film's actors and later animate it over with 3 dimensional animation. The same technique was used a couple of years ago in the film The Polar Express also by Beowulf director Robert Zemeckis. The film takes place in late 500 AD in England and is about a village that is terrorized by a monster named Grendel who frequently comes to the surface of the Earth and kills whoever is being merry and making music. King Hrothgar sends for a warrior named Beowulf to slay Grendel and after doing so, Beowulf soon becomes king of the land, but a lie that he has covered up with his famous battle will soon come back to haunt him and the kingdom. I think because of the animation and visual style of the film and also because it's story and action sequences that people will compare this film to this year's earlier film 300. While I gave 300 a pretty favourable review on this site mostly because of the visuals I felt that the visuals were better than the story and film itself, but luckily Beowulf uses great animation and visuals along with a truly exciting and entertaining story. Beowulf is a beautiful film to look at because of it's animation and I thought the story was full of action and excitement which was enough to capture my interest for the film's length. I have always been into mythology and stories of that kind, so for that reason Beowulf also intrigued me even more and I think that today there is a large audience into the sword battle and monster films, so I think this film should appeal to many and with it's great pace it will surely entertain. The only thing I had a problem with in this film was a few lines of dialogue that the screenwriters put in that were unintentionally funny in a crude kind of way when I don't think they were particularly meant to be, so for that reason I don't think those few scenes really fit in and I noticed the audience laughed like I did at said moments, so I knew I wasn't the only one with this complaint. Those lines and scenes just didn't suit a serious film like this. However this is only a real mild complaint while the rest of the movie I enjoyed immensely because of the fascinating story, the non stop action and the visual beauty of the animation. This is one of the best animated films of the year so far and I think if people were to ignore those few scenes and lines of dialogue I mentioned above then they should be in for a good time as well as a visually stunning experience as well.

Gayowulf...

tt0442933

To start off, I have a few spoilers in this review which are well marked so don't be afraid of me throwing in anything important without warning. I was very neutral about Beowulf when I went to see the film. I was skeptical when I saw the trailer, however, a lot of positive reviews had made me think it might be pretty good. I saw the 3D version which was about the best thing about it. Where to begin? Beowulf was completely in CGI, which was a huge surprise to me when I actually sat down to see it. The animation was very well done for the exception of a few of the characters. The 3D effects were at some parts very enjoyable, and others it was pretty much a joke. I imagine watching this at home and wondering why there is a spear head that takes up the entire screen, then remembering this movie was tailored for 3D. The only really horrible moment to me in the animation was the scene with Grendel's mother, and Beowulf. Beowulf looks fine on his own, however, Grendel's mother looks so much more realistic that it makes for an awkward clash in contrast. This was honestly the only moment a normal person could complain about as far as animation goes.Onto the plot and characters... I really don't like Beowulf in this movie. He's pretty much portrayed as a boastful liar which makes for a horrible hero if you ask me. Everyone has flaws, but to have a character where his only sense of heroism is in physical prowess is difficult to identify with. Anthony Hopkins character really fit well into this movie as well as most of the other protagonists. The only problem was I felt like they all wore their personalities way out there so you could get to know them very quickly because there was absolutely no story telling in this film at all. To appreciate a film you don't have to like all, or any of the characters but it really does help. The plot was pretty weak I felt. It was more of a troubled love story, and less of an epic story of a hero which seems to me to fit the title better. In a movie just full of action this kind of thing really doesn't matter because its more like filler for scenes with no action. Unfortunately for Beowulf there was not enough action to carry this empty plot and make a decent film out of it. The setting didn't change much at all, it was basically taking place around a small village. I will give them that at the end of the movie it really transformed from small and pathetic to pretty vast.The directing was excellent if you ask me. The action sequences flowed very nicely, and I really did enjoy the soundtrack written for this movie. There were some amazing shots of Beowulf performing slices on sea monsters and a dragon. Overall a well shot film and I can see why they went CGI.Overall Beowulf felt very empty. I felt like I watched a whole lot of nothing happen on the screen. There were only 2 significant action sequences, and a few very brief mentions of action. The plot was very bland and I felt like there was not much that actually happened throughout the whole movie, and the resolution if you can call it that when the credits rolled made me want to punch someone. The soundtrack from the beginning to the end was spot on. I feel like this is a great movie for 3D, however, I feel like 3D can really cheapen a film. Look at Friday the 13th part 3 that film was pretty ridiculous. Beowulf is worth a single watch in 3D because there are some good moments, however I don't imagine this ever appearing on my DVD shelf. There were quite a few laughable moments (**SPOILERS** the butt naked fight scene, him bursting through a sea monsters head screaming "BEOWULF!!!!!!", and my favorite was when he cut his own arm off and it didn't even seem to work out that well. Personally I would untwist myself or something so I could manage to kill the dragon and land on that bridge...**END OF SPOILERS**) 5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-160

ur6223455

title: Gayowulf... review: To start off, I have a few spoilers in this review which are well marked so don't be afraid of me throwing in anything important without warning. I was very neutral about Beowulf when I went to see the film. I was skeptical when I saw the trailer, however, a lot of positive reviews had made me think it might be pretty good. I saw the 3D version which was about the best thing about it. Where to begin? Beowulf was completely in CGI, which was a huge surprise to me when I actually sat down to see it. The animation was very well done for the exception of a few of the characters. The 3D effects were at some parts very enjoyable, and others it was pretty much a joke. I imagine watching this at home and wondering why there is a spear head that takes up the entire screen, then remembering this movie was tailored for 3D. The only really horrible moment to me in the animation was the scene with Grendel's mother, and Beowulf. Beowulf looks fine on his own, however, Grendel's mother looks so much more realistic that it makes for an awkward clash in contrast. This was honestly the only moment a normal person could complain about as far as animation goes.Onto the plot and characters... I really don't like Beowulf in this movie. He's pretty much portrayed as a boastful liar which makes for a horrible hero if you ask me. Everyone has flaws, but to have a character where his only sense of heroism is in physical prowess is difficult to identify with. Anthony Hopkins character really fit well into this movie as well as most of the other protagonists. The only problem was I felt like they all wore their personalities way out there so you could get to know them very quickly because there was absolutely no story telling in this film at all. To appreciate a film you don't have to like all, or any of the characters but it really does help. The plot was pretty weak I felt. It was more of a troubled love story, and less of an epic story of a hero which seems to me to fit the title better. In a movie just full of action this kind of thing really doesn't matter because its more like filler for scenes with no action. Unfortunately for Beowulf there was not enough action to carry this empty plot and make a decent film out of it. The setting didn't change much at all, it was basically taking place around a small village. I will give them that at the end of the movie it really transformed from small and pathetic to pretty vast.The directing was excellent if you ask me. The action sequences flowed very nicely, and I really did enjoy the soundtrack written for this movie. There were some amazing shots of Beowulf performing slices on sea monsters and a dragon. Overall a well shot film and I can see why they went CGI.Overall Beowulf felt very empty. I felt like I watched a whole lot of nothing happen on the screen. There were only 2 significant action sequences, and a few very brief mentions of action. The plot was very bland and I felt like there was not much that actually happened throughout the whole movie, and the resolution if you can call it that when the credits rolled made me want to punch someone. The soundtrack from the beginning to the end was spot on. I feel like this is a great movie for 3D, however, I feel like 3D can really cheapen a film. Look at Friday the 13th part 3 that film was pretty ridiculous. Beowulf is worth a single watch in 3D because there are some good moments, however I don't imagine this ever appearing on my DVD shelf. There were quite a few laughable moments (**SPOILERS** the butt naked fight scene, him bursting through a sea monsters head screaming "BEOWULF!!!!!!", and my favorite was when he cut his own arm off and it didn't even seem to work out that well. Personally I would untwist myself or something so I could manage to kill the dragon and land on that bridge...**END OF SPOILERS**) 5/10

Another performance capture from Zemeckis

tt0442933

I like Robert Zemeckis as a filmmaker. Who framed Roger Rabbit and Forrest Gump were excellent and Back to the future was creative. Yet he has become obsessed with performance capture. I think it looks rather silly, like it does not know whether it is live action or animation. After his children's' story The Polar Express, Zemeckis takes on the Dark Ages Poem Beowulf, casting Ray Winstone as the title character. Winstone acted, but his appearance is changed to make him look more buff. Incorrect portrayal of the ancient poem's story, (I guess Zemeckis was counting on no one having read the poem or understood it) and the performance capture has made strides, but still fails as a dramatic medium. I wish that Zemeckis would have chosen literacy over visuals here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-516

ur26550510

title: Another performance capture from Zemeckis review: I like Robert Zemeckis as a filmmaker. Who framed Roger Rabbit and Forrest Gump were excellent and Back to the future was creative. Yet he has become obsessed with performance capture. I think it looks rather silly, like it does not know whether it is live action or animation. After his children's' story The Polar Express, Zemeckis takes on the Dark Ages Poem Beowulf, casting Ray Winstone as the title character. Winstone acted, but his appearance is changed to make him look more buff. Incorrect portrayal of the ancient poem's story, (I guess Zemeckis was counting on no one having read the poem or understood it) and the performance capture has made strides, but still fails as a dramatic medium. I wish that Zemeckis would have chosen literacy over visuals here.

alright but not grate

tt0442933

Just this minute got back from seeing a free preview of Beowulf and OH MY GOD! This is a cracking film and I highly recommend everyone goes to the cinema to see it (it's a cinema experience for sure!). Not only that, but it's 3D (which I wasn't aware of) or rather the all new 3D (no more red/green glasses). Everyone in the audience was given what looked like cheap-ass shades, but they did the job wonderfully and fitted snugly over my regular specs.As for the movie, the plot was tight and well scripted, the voice acting was great (Ray Winstone rocks), the action was breathtaking, some of the CGI was unbelievably gorgeous and the music and incidental sound was great! The only downside for me was some of the CGI. It seemed apparent that given an unlimited budget, this movie would have looked phenomenal in every scene, but unfortunately the budget wasn't unlimited and it shows in a number of places. Nothing looks horrible, but you can tell that they had to pick and choose where to go for high detail. The movie also suffers from the age old, it's creepy because it's almost perfect.As for the 3D, apart from an awesome intro, nothing seems to be done just to exploit 3D, it's all very natural and adds an amazing level of detail to the movie. The depth of vision you get is truly breathtaking in parts.Quite honestly I wasn't expecting much from this movie having seen the trailer, but I was blown away.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-495

ur22726292

title: alright but not grate review: Just this minute got back from seeing a free preview of Beowulf and OH MY GOD! This is a cracking film and I highly recommend everyone goes to the cinema to see it (it's a cinema experience for sure!). Not only that, but it's 3D (which I wasn't aware of) or rather the all new 3D (no more red/green glasses). Everyone in the audience was given what looked like cheap-ass shades, but they did the job wonderfully and fitted snugly over my regular specs.As for the movie, the plot was tight and well scripted, the voice acting was great (Ray Winstone rocks), the action was breathtaking, some of the CGI was unbelievably gorgeous and the music and incidental sound was great! The only downside for me was some of the CGI. It seemed apparent that given an unlimited budget, this movie would have looked phenomenal in every scene, but unfortunately the budget wasn't unlimited and it shows in a number of places. Nothing looks horrible, but you can tell that they had to pick and choose where to go for high detail. The movie also suffers from the age old, it's creepy because it's almost perfect.As for the 3D, apart from an awesome intro, nothing seems to be done just to exploit 3D, it's all very natural and adds an amazing level of detail to the movie. The depth of vision you get is truly breathtaking in parts.Quite honestly I wasn't expecting much from this movie having seen the trailer, but I was blown away.

I'm not a fan of CGI movies, but...

tt0442933

... this one worked for me. Yeah, it's CGI, and yeah, it's lame, and the comparisons between the action scenes and a "videogame cut-scenes" are common in this cases. But, alas, in this case I wouldn't go so far about it. Why?, because it's a really good story, with classic characters, with interesting twists on the original story of Beowulf, and, in the end, I felt it worked.Here's the thing: when you watch a cartoon movie, also feels fake, because you can always say: "it's just a bunch of cartoons". But are many animated movies which are classics, because of the characters, the story and the feeling it delivers. CGI movies are not classic animation, in the sense that is trying to imitate real environments. It's good?, in general, I would say it isn't good, because, most of the times, it feels like an attempt to give "eye candy" to the audience, rather than tell a good and interesting story (said... Star Wars prequels?). But the story of Beowulf is so classic, and good, it overcomes these problems, and at times, I almost forgot I was watching a bunch of pixels, and rather, a good adventure movie.Recommended: Check it out.8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-514

ur25340948

title: I'm not a fan of CGI movies, but... review: ... this one worked for me. Yeah, it's CGI, and yeah, it's lame, and the comparisons between the action scenes and a "videogame cut-scenes" are common in this cases. But, alas, in this case I wouldn't go so far about it. Why?, because it's a really good story, with classic characters, with interesting twists on the original story of Beowulf, and, in the end, I felt it worked.Here's the thing: when you watch a cartoon movie, also feels fake, because you can always say: "it's just a bunch of cartoons". But are many animated movies which are classics, because of the characters, the story and the feeling it delivers. CGI movies are not classic animation, in the sense that is trying to imitate real environments. It's good?, in general, I would say it isn't good, because, most of the times, it feels like an attempt to give "eye candy" to the audience, rather than tell a good and interesting story (said... Star Wars prequels?). But the story of Beowulf is so classic, and good, it overcomes these problems, and at times, I almost forgot I was watching a bunch of pixels, and rather, a good adventure movie.Recommended: Check it out.8/10

Approaches Great

tt0442933

Theatrical animation technology has finally reached the dilemma point of having to push ahead towards replacing live action film or retain its distinctive animated nature. Not since the ill-fated FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN (2001) has animation taken the realistic leap into recreating real life forms. Unfortunately, while the creative innovations are used here, they are used inconsistently, with glimpses of the great potential that animated technology can have in delivering an amazing cinematic experience. The qualitative inconsistency between the male and female characters where many of the male characters have rich, densely, layered human appearances, most of the delicate females seem artificial and incomplete for the most part. Even the Angelina Jolie's character, sometimes sumptuously rich, will in the same scene alternate between a realistic image of a creature to just a caricature. The plot outline also has a number of weaknesses, particularly how the Queen's character was not realistically portrayed either she had contemporary morality of faithfulness that didn't match that of the times or would accept later the sharing of her husband. The recovery of a special, cherished item was also mysterious. While there will fabulous animated scenes that clearly justified animation, there were also several scenes that just seemed awkward in the use of animation. The spawn creature was also not fully developed and its relationship to its maker wasn't fully captured on screen. This movie does deserve credit for being a morality tale that isn't what the American audience is used to. Unfortunately, the potential of animation was touched but not fully executed to its greatest effect. Seven out of Ten Stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-183

ur0972645

title: Approaches Great review: Theatrical animation technology has finally reached the dilemma point of having to push ahead towards replacing live action film or retain its distinctive animated nature. Not since the ill-fated FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN (2001) has animation taken the realistic leap into recreating real life forms. Unfortunately, while the creative innovations are used here, they are used inconsistently, with glimpses of the great potential that animated technology can have in delivering an amazing cinematic experience. The qualitative inconsistency between the male and female characters where many of the male characters have rich, densely, layered human appearances, most of the delicate females seem artificial and incomplete for the most part. Even the Angelina Jolie's character, sometimes sumptuously rich, will in the same scene alternate between a realistic image of a creature to just a caricature. The plot outline also has a number of weaknesses, particularly how the Queen's character was not realistically portrayed either she had contemporary morality of faithfulness that didn't match that of the times or would accept later the sharing of her husband. The recovery of a special, cherished item was also mysterious. While there will fabulous animated scenes that clearly justified animation, there were also several scenes that just seemed awkward in the use of animation. The spawn creature was also not fully developed and its relationship to its maker wasn't fully captured on screen. This movie does deserve credit for being a morality tale that isn't what the American audience is used to. Unfortunately, the potential of animation was touched but not fully executed to its greatest effect. Seven out of Ten Stars.

Livening up the Anglo-Saxons

tt0442933

Sturla Gunnarsson's film version of this Anglo-Saxon poem and legend a couple of years ago robbed the story of its legendary elements. Since Beowulf is a national myth freely blending the magical, fantastic, and historical, nothing very memorable, or even appropriate, came out Gunnarsson's well meaning effort to make it brooding, "historical," and "realistic"--except that he did capture the overwhelming gloom of much Anglo-Saxon poetry.Robert Zemeckis has done a new version, vivid and full of life, gore, and occasional humor. To achieve this effect he has used motion capture technology, with improvements over the previous feature to use the effect, Polar Express. He's also enlisted some rather famous actors, and the movie's been shown in regular format, a 3-D projection with the old glasses bit, and I-Max.All of which turn the tale into something fabulous, perhaps a bit kitsch, pretty entertaining, and the most ridiculous PG-13 movie ever. It's extraordinarily violent; but then, so are many traditional children's stories, myths--and national epics (the Iliad and the Odyssey aren't sweet little nursery tales; but that's the point: nursery tales aren't sweet).In the 3-D version I saw, as in the old days of 3-D, which never did catch on, spears and drops of blood and pebbles spew constantly in your face. We'd be dead or maimed if our mugs were thrust so close to such events. But after a while you get used to it. You adjust to the motion capture imagery too. It makes sense for legendary characters to have an artificial gloss. The point is there's no naturalistic way to render the Beowulf story.This movie has done well at the US box office. Some have compared it to a computer game, and it's certainly comic book or graphic novel material in the Zemeckis version. But the result is surprisingly effective, and despite some jarring elements--most people may just remember a naked Angelina Jolie with an odd accent, and maybe Crispin Glover covered in gore and spore and magnified to fifteen times a man's size, as Grendel, the monster.A highly computer-enhanced Ray Winstone (provided with a super-nautilus body) plays Beowulf, the Geat who comes to slay Grendel for Hrothgar, leader of the Danes. The story opens with the great "mead hall" where the early Scandinavians got drunk and swore oaths they later were held to. Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is a drunken, fat old man with a young wife Wealhtheow (Robin Wright Penn); he's nonetheless extraordinarily brave. When the monster Grendel, a misshapen, outcast creature, comes to kill many of Hrothgar's men in the hall, Hrothgar stands up to him boldly--and survives. But the next day he closes the hall and goes into a period of grieving.When Beowulf comes along offering to slay Grendel and boasting of his prowess, he is challenged, primarily by Unferth (John Malkovitch)--an interesting character, unappealing, cowardly, but a useful foil for Beowulf whom the hero ultimately forgives and in the film version turns friendly. Unferth accuses Beowulf of exaggerating his prowess in a swimming contest. In the movie, Beowulf is a liar several important times. This is not exactly the way the story originally went, but writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary have embellished the original in interesting ways.The most obvious one is Angelina. "Grendel's dam" (an animal term for mother) as the poem calls her is never clearly described--certainly not as a big-breasted, bee-sting-lipped naked babe. This is certainly a lively element, but a pretty distracting one. Beowulf has to battle Grendel, then his mother, and then, later, a great dragon. Arguably the dragon is even more distracting, since it's a huge, spectacular, golden creature. But this makes for an appropriately grandiose climax.Grendel is pretty weird looking, a little too grotesque and disgusting and not monstrous on a heroic scale as the epic poem implies, but naturally Crispin Glover does good things with the character, making him a pitiful as well as scary figure.Scholars argue endlessly about the meaning of various elements in the story; a big issue is how strong the Christian element in it is. As someone who studied the original pretty closely at one time myself, I was impressed at how well this movie brings the story to life. It doesn't seem to have appealed much to the critics. But the ancient bard who spun out the original poem was not an art-house filmmaker. Yes, it's kitsch; yes, Angelina's a jarring element; and yes, the various accents are a dreadful mixture. But anything that leads people back to the oldest English literary tradition of all and gives it popular appeal again seems pretty worthwhile to me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-311

ur1501216

title: Livening up the Anglo-Saxons review: Sturla Gunnarsson's film version of this Anglo-Saxon poem and legend a couple of years ago robbed the story of its legendary elements. Since Beowulf is a national myth freely blending the magical, fantastic, and historical, nothing very memorable, or even appropriate, came out Gunnarsson's well meaning effort to make it brooding, "historical," and "realistic"--except that he did capture the overwhelming gloom of much Anglo-Saxon poetry.Robert Zemeckis has done a new version, vivid and full of life, gore, and occasional humor. To achieve this effect he has used motion capture technology, with improvements over the previous feature to use the effect, Polar Express. He's also enlisted some rather famous actors, and the movie's been shown in regular format, a 3-D projection with the old glasses bit, and I-Max.All of which turn the tale into something fabulous, perhaps a bit kitsch, pretty entertaining, and the most ridiculous PG-13 movie ever. It's extraordinarily violent; but then, so are many traditional children's stories, myths--and national epics (the Iliad and the Odyssey aren't sweet little nursery tales; but that's the point: nursery tales aren't sweet).In the 3-D version I saw, as in the old days of 3-D, which never did catch on, spears and drops of blood and pebbles spew constantly in your face. We'd be dead or maimed if our mugs were thrust so close to such events. But after a while you get used to it. You adjust to the motion capture imagery too. It makes sense for legendary characters to have an artificial gloss. The point is there's no naturalistic way to render the Beowulf story.This movie has done well at the US box office. Some have compared it to a computer game, and it's certainly comic book or graphic novel material in the Zemeckis version. But the result is surprisingly effective, and despite some jarring elements--most people may just remember a naked Angelina Jolie with an odd accent, and maybe Crispin Glover covered in gore and spore and magnified to fifteen times a man's size, as Grendel, the monster.A highly computer-enhanced Ray Winstone (provided with a super-nautilus body) plays Beowulf, the Geat who comes to slay Grendel for Hrothgar, leader of the Danes. The story opens with the great "mead hall" where the early Scandinavians got drunk and swore oaths they later were held to. Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is a drunken, fat old man with a young wife Wealhtheow (Robin Wright Penn); he's nonetheless extraordinarily brave. When the monster Grendel, a misshapen, outcast creature, comes to kill many of Hrothgar's men in the hall, Hrothgar stands up to him boldly--and survives. But the next day he closes the hall and goes into a period of grieving.When Beowulf comes along offering to slay Grendel and boasting of his prowess, he is challenged, primarily by Unferth (John Malkovitch)--an interesting character, unappealing, cowardly, but a useful foil for Beowulf whom the hero ultimately forgives and in the film version turns friendly. Unferth accuses Beowulf of exaggerating his prowess in a swimming contest. In the movie, Beowulf is a liar several important times. This is not exactly the way the story originally went, but writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary have embellished the original in interesting ways.The most obvious one is Angelina. "Grendel's dam" (an animal term for mother) as the poem calls her is never clearly described--certainly not as a big-breasted, bee-sting-lipped naked babe. This is certainly a lively element, but a pretty distracting one. Beowulf has to battle Grendel, then his mother, and then, later, a great dragon. Arguably the dragon is even more distracting, since it's a huge, spectacular, golden creature. But this makes for an appropriately grandiose climax.Grendel is pretty weird looking, a little too grotesque and disgusting and not monstrous on a heroic scale as the epic poem implies, but naturally Crispin Glover does good things with the character, making him a pitiful as well as scary figure.Scholars argue endlessly about the meaning of various elements in the story; a big issue is how strong the Christian element in it is. As someone who studied the original pretty closely at one time myself, I was impressed at how well this movie brings the story to life. It doesn't seem to have appealed much to the critics. But the ancient bard who spun out the original poem was not an art-house filmmaker. Yes, it's kitsch; yes, Angelina's a jarring element; and yes, the various accents are a dreadful mixture. But anything that leads people back to the oldest English literary tradition of all and gives it popular appeal again seems pretty worthwhile to me.

Beowulf!

tt0442933

It is another so-called ancient movies like 300, troy and more. Now it features about Vikings. A guy called Beowulf ( Ray Winstone) goes to a land to slay a powerful dragon, Grendel ( Crispin Glover) and Grendel's mother ( Angelina Jolie) wants revenge on Beowulf. The story is simple and yet engrossing.The director, Robert Zemeckis move on from Polar Express to this animation Beowulf. While watching the trailers, I was confused about what I was seeing. It seemed realistic but after some scenes, I realised it was just animation. Beowulf used the motion of the real actors are captured on computer and is then put in the computer animation to make a photo-realistic movie. It is just amazing. The animation seems better than Polar express.It is co-written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. It is smart, cool and amazing. It could be all you are asking for. Beowulf and Gredel's mother are partially naked. That is also the drool of people who are watching this movie. Angelina Jolie, partially naked rising out of the water in gold paint. What do people want more. The violence is there too.Overall, it does make a good fantasy action movie. It does have the appeal too. Watching in cinema will increase the intense like fights and it is awesome to watch it in cinema, it is 3-D . Probaby a good movie to watch in November.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-20

ur12930537

title: Beowulf! review: It is another so-called ancient movies like 300, troy and more. Now it features about Vikings. A guy called Beowulf ( Ray Winstone) goes to a land to slay a powerful dragon, Grendel ( Crispin Glover) and Grendel's mother ( Angelina Jolie) wants revenge on Beowulf. The story is simple and yet engrossing.The director, Robert Zemeckis move on from Polar Express to this animation Beowulf. While watching the trailers, I was confused about what I was seeing. It seemed realistic but after some scenes, I realised it was just animation. Beowulf used the motion of the real actors are captured on computer and is then put in the computer animation to make a photo-realistic movie. It is just amazing. The animation seems better than Polar express.It is co-written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. It is smart, cool and amazing. It could be all you are asking for. Beowulf and Gredel's mother are partially naked. That is also the drool of people who are watching this movie. Angelina Jolie, partially naked rising out of the water in gold paint. What do people want more. The violence is there too.Overall, it does make a good fantasy action movie. It does have the appeal too. Watching in cinema will increase the intense like fights and it is awesome to watch it in cinema, it is 3-D . Probaby a good movie to watch in November.

Visually impressive and enjoyable fantasy

tt0442933

A well rendered computer generated fantasy inspired by the epic anglo-saxon poem Beowulf, from which it derives its title. Pedants will argue over the deviations from the classical text but, frankly, I couldn't care less.The voice acting is generally very good, although it takes a little while to get past some of the accent choices, and it's easy to become immersed in the film and become less conspicuously aware that your watching CGI.It's not a film without its share of minor frustrations either. Robin Wright Penn's portrayal of a jaded, world-weary queen did not translate well to her computer generated character on screen, which seemed annoyingly bland and wooden among an otherwise very charismatic cast.Overall, a very enjoyable movie that is worth watching.Note: Although most computer generated PG-rated movies are child-friendly, note that this is PG-13. It is dark and blood-splattered in places. This may not be a good film for younger children.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-357

ur10130491

title: Visually impressive and enjoyable fantasy review: A well rendered computer generated fantasy inspired by the epic anglo-saxon poem Beowulf, from which it derives its title. Pedants will argue over the deviations from the classical text but, frankly, I couldn't care less.The voice acting is generally very good, although it takes a little while to get past some of the accent choices, and it's easy to become immersed in the film and become less conspicuously aware that your watching CGI.It's not a film without its share of minor frustrations either. Robin Wright Penn's portrayal of a jaded, world-weary queen did not translate well to her computer generated character on screen, which seemed annoyingly bland and wooden among an otherwise very charismatic cast.Overall, a very enjoyable movie that is worth watching.Note: Although most computer generated PG-rated movies are child-friendly, note that this is PG-13. It is dark and blood-splattered in places. This may not be a good film for younger children.

Captures an Essence

tt0442933

Having never read the story before, I came into Beowulf not knowing exactly what to expect. However, within the first five minutes, I was sold on the ambiance of the picture. Robert Zemenkis creates a mileu of a beautiful yet unforgiving snowy landscape that sets the tone for the story, (the same kind of dark ambiance one can expect in Harry Potter). I came in expecting excessive spectacle, ( like 300), and granted, there was some, but not in excess. The 3-d effect was a also a welcomed addition. The only thing I grew weary of was the lack of development in Beowulf character, whereas they stereotyped him as a Leonidas like hero, brawling, boisterous, and full of hubris. Otherwise the story is a classic that I am glad to see has stood the test of time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-185

ur15982836

title: Captures an Essence review: Having never read the story before, I came into Beowulf not knowing exactly what to expect. However, within the first five minutes, I was sold on the ambiance of the picture. Robert Zemenkis creates a mileu of a beautiful yet unforgiving snowy landscape that sets the tone for the story, (the same kind of dark ambiance one can expect in Harry Potter). I came in expecting excessive spectacle, ( like 300), and granted, there was some, but not in excess. The 3-d effect was a also a welcomed addition. The only thing I grew weary of was the lack of development in Beowulf character, whereas they stereotyped him as a Leonidas like hero, brawling, boisterous, and full of hubris. Otherwise the story is a classic that I am glad to see has stood the test of time.

"I am naked!!!"

tt0442933

THE way to see this film is in a digital 3D environment. It is one of those films that is enhanced when seen in the proper environment.Technically speaking, the film, seen in a digital 3D format, is awesome. There are still some work to be done in capturing a realistic gate of a horse running and here and there the movements are jerky. But all in all, this is a technological achievement.Story wise, the film is pretty good. The bravado encompassed in Beowulf's exclamation of "I am Beowulf" perfectly captures the essence of the character. There is an uncomfortable exhibitionism about Beowolf. He seems intent on meeting his enemies in the "barest" possible setting. If you can get passed Beowulf fighting ala commando, you will enjoy the story and action. The film does start out a bit shaky, but once Beowulf shows up, it picks up pace and we are transported into a fun story. There has been a lot of advances done with motion capture over the years. At times, you forget this is animated and get pulled into the movie through the character moments where they are thinking, contemplating their next movie. Or reacting to what another character has said. I can not wait to see the technology continue moving forward.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-252

ur2632576

title: "I am naked!!!" review: THE way to see this film is in a digital 3D environment. It is one of those films that is enhanced when seen in the proper environment.Technically speaking, the film, seen in a digital 3D format, is awesome. There are still some work to be done in capturing a realistic gate of a horse running and here and there the movements are jerky. But all in all, this is a technological achievement.Story wise, the film is pretty good. The bravado encompassed in Beowulf's exclamation of "I am Beowulf" perfectly captures the essence of the character. There is an uncomfortable exhibitionism about Beowolf. He seems intent on meeting his enemies in the "barest" possible setting. If you can get passed Beowulf fighting ala commando, you will enjoy the story and action. The film does start out a bit shaky, but once Beowulf shows up, it picks up pace and we are transported into a fun story. There has been a lot of advances done with motion capture over the years. At times, you forget this is animated and get pulled into the movie through the character moments where they are thinking, contemplating their next movie. Or reacting to what another character has said. I can not wait to see the technology continue moving forward.

This film is crazy!!!

tt0442933

What a movie. What a combination of violence, extremely loud sounds and odd characters (like Beowulf himself). To most people, it is an amazing recreation of graphics to entertain audiences who like war movies such as Lord of the Rings. To me it is an utter exposure of flamboyant terror (if that makes sense). I don't know whether it was the fact that I was too weak, or the movie was too strong for people my age (15). Even my sister who is four years my senior, was crouching in her chair with her ears covered by her hands. However, when I came home almost dizzy with those overwhelming special effects, I read in time magazine that it is the tenth best movie of the year. I was surprised…but I came to some sort of conclusion. It was not the fact that the movie was too violent or too shameful or a disgrace to society…it was the fact that it was advertised the wrong way. People who liked lord of the rings like myself would not necessarily enjoy this overwhelmingly graphical movie. It should in fact be rated "R" unless a video game freak maybe younger than me who plays games rated "Mature" (and can handle them) wants to see it. What a strange situation this is

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-444

ur13593855

title: This film is crazy!!! review: What a movie. What a combination of violence, extremely loud sounds and odd characters (like Beowulf himself). To most people, it is an amazing recreation of graphics to entertain audiences who like war movies such as Lord of the Rings. To me it is an utter exposure of flamboyant terror (if that makes sense). I don't know whether it was the fact that I was too weak, or the movie was too strong for people my age (15). Even my sister who is four years my senior, was crouching in her chair with her ears covered by her hands. However, when I came home almost dizzy with those overwhelming special effects, I read in time magazine that it is the tenth best movie of the year. I was surprised…but I came to some sort of conclusion. It was not the fact that the movie was too violent or too shameful or a disgrace to society…it was the fact that it was advertised the wrong way. People who liked lord of the rings like myself would not necessarily enjoy this overwhelmingly graphical movie. It should in fact be rated "R" unless a video game freak maybe younger than me who plays games rated "Mature" (and can handle them) wants to see it. What a strange situation this is

Wahhhhhh, you can't have style AND substance, it's just not possible!

tt0442933

Nobody seems to think that a movie can look good and have substance, so when a visually stunning movie comes along there's all of these people that whine about how its all flash, no substance no matter how much substance there actually IS ::cough:: Sin City, 300 ::Cough:: Beowulf is full to the brim of visual goodness, and its also full to the brim with mature, intelligent themes and a wonderfully complex not-so-typical lead character. This is by no means sugar coated in any way, and pushes its PG-13 rating pretty close to the breaking point. I love that they didn't make Beowulf some uber sexy thing that the girls would swoon over, instead we got a physique that fit the character instead of played off women's fantasies of a swashbuckling romance novel hero. I've read some comments that the movie "drags" in some places, which simply isn't true if you're actually listening to what going on and not just waiting for the next action sequence. Apparently if nobody is bleeding, the movie is dragging...ugh. I've also read comments that the eyes are "lifeless." I must have been watching a different movie, because the emotion held in each character's eyes was pretty dang flawless, definitely not wooden.Long story short: Come for the visuals, stay for the story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-103

ur3769621

title: Wahhhhhh, you can't have style AND substance, it's just not possible! review: Nobody seems to think that a movie can look good and have substance, so when a visually stunning movie comes along there's all of these people that whine about how its all flash, no substance no matter how much substance there actually IS ::cough:: Sin City, 300 ::Cough:: Beowulf is full to the brim of visual goodness, and its also full to the brim with mature, intelligent themes and a wonderfully complex not-so-typical lead character. This is by no means sugar coated in any way, and pushes its PG-13 rating pretty close to the breaking point. I love that they didn't make Beowulf some uber sexy thing that the girls would swoon over, instead we got a physique that fit the character instead of played off women's fantasies of a swashbuckling romance novel hero. I've read some comments that the movie "drags" in some places, which simply isn't true if you're actually listening to what going on and not just waiting for the next action sequence. Apparently if nobody is bleeding, the movie is dragging...ugh. I've also read comments that the eyes are "lifeless." I must have been watching a different movie, because the emotion held in each character's eyes was pretty dang flawless, definitely not wooden.Long story short: Come for the visuals, stay for the story.

Hoping It Had Been Live Action

tt0442933

I'm surprised to see such a film coming from Robert Zemericks, I must say. Finally a movie on that epic poem of Beowulf that I read so much about in high school. Of course, I was expecting to see live action and to get the animation was a bit of a downer. It may look pretty close, but nothing beats the real deal.For the voice cast we have some very good actors and actresses selected, like Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins. Playing Beowulf is Ray Winstone, who does great by the way. Grendel is a hell of a lot different than I always had imagined him. When I first read about it I had pictured him as a more reptilian type of being but…yeah, he's kind of hard to describe in the film. Voiced by Crispin Glover, it was a more or less bad choice. Aside that, many differences between the poem and the film are present, some good, and some bad. Beowulf being a somewhat flawed man on the inside, something somewhat enjoyable. King Hrothgar being a womanizing alcoholic was something I found no point in honestly. However, the whole story arc concerning Grendel's mom as a seductress rather than a monster was unexpected and fun to figure out. First time I saw it, it definitely didn't hit me. How Grendel and the Dragon at the climax are children of power-hungry men, Hrothgar and Beowulf. It's really in-between the lines but a very interesting development. I just hate how she never dies…a major annoyance considering Beowulf killed her in the poem not long after Grendel had been slain.Alan Silvestri is not a bad composer, and the animation is beautiful so all in all Zemericks did well. I guess it all depends whether or not you take it seriously because it's not live action. Kind of a "The Incredibles" type of thing. Animation belongs to family films, and gruesome hero flicks belong live-action.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-505

ur20916867

title: Hoping It Had Been Live Action review: I'm surprised to see such a film coming from Robert Zemericks, I must say. Finally a movie on that epic poem of Beowulf that I read so much about in high school. Of course, I was expecting to see live action and to get the animation was a bit of a downer. It may look pretty close, but nothing beats the real deal.For the voice cast we have some very good actors and actresses selected, like Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins. Playing Beowulf is Ray Winstone, who does great by the way. Grendel is a hell of a lot different than I always had imagined him. When I first read about it I had pictured him as a more reptilian type of being but…yeah, he's kind of hard to describe in the film. Voiced by Crispin Glover, it was a more or less bad choice. Aside that, many differences between the poem and the film are present, some good, and some bad. Beowulf being a somewhat flawed man on the inside, something somewhat enjoyable. King Hrothgar being a womanizing alcoholic was something I found no point in honestly. However, the whole story arc concerning Grendel's mom as a seductress rather than a monster was unexpected and fun to figure out. First time I saw it, it definitely didn't hit me. How Grendel and the Dragon at the climax are children of power-hungry men, Hrothgar and Beowulf. It's really in-between the lines but a very interesting development. I just hate how she never dies…a major annoyance considering Beowulf killed her in the poem not long after Grendel had been slain.Alan Silvestri is not a bad composer, and the animation is beautiful so all in all Zemericks did well. I guess it all depends whether or not you take it seriously because it's not live action. Kind of a "The Incredibles" type of thing. Animation belongs to family films, and gruesome hero flicks belong live-action.

Beowulf!

tt0442933

Beowulf arrives to rid the land of a demon named Grendal, however after slaying the creature he provokes its Mother, who offers Beowulf a deal. Growing up I was aware of the Beowulf tale and saw a couple versions of it, so when this movie came along; I ignored it...I mean what could Hollywood possibly apply to such a epic tale...Turns out they can give the tale a bit of sexiness in the form of Angelina Jolie and give Ray Winstone a six pack.Visually Beowulf is amazing, although the storyline is loosely based on the original it does not take anything away as what you receive in return is a tale of 'temptation'. The animation is just brilliant and I truly believe that comic book movies could benefit from this, than live action movies..The action scenes are a little off and not enough, perhaps due to the complexity of animation and the film does slow down half way yet it remains entertaining, the actors are all chosen brilliantly, Ray Winstone roars every line with menace, while Anthony Hopkins gives a good performance, but then we have the beautiful Angelina Jolie who looks stunning as ever as Grendal's Mother.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-513

ur8131454

title: Beowulf! review: Beowulf arrives to rid the land of a demon named Grendal, however after slaying the creature he provokes its Mother, who offers Beowulf a deal. Growing up I was aware of the Beowulf tale and saw a couple versions of it, so when this movie came along; I ignored it...I mean what could Hollywood possibly apply to such a epic tale...Turns out they can give the tale a bit of sexiness in the form of Angelina Jolie and give Ray Winstone a six pack.Visually Beowulf is amazing, although the storyline is loosely based on the original it does not take anything away as what you receive in return is a tale of 'temptation'. The animation is just brilliant and I truly believe that comic book movies could benefit from this, than live action movies..The action scenes are a little off and not enough, perhaps due to the complexity of animation and the film does slow down half way yet it remains entertaining, the actors are all chosen brilliantly, Ray Winstone roars every line with menace, while Anthony Hopkins gives a good performance, but then we have the beautiful Angelina Jolie who looks stunning as ever as Grendal's Mother.

visually incredible, excellent animation, and epic movie.

tt0442933

Beowulf is the proof of what can be done with animation nowadays, a movie that seems to be acted by real people but that is actually made completely by cgi. A film that follows the same line as 300. Beowulf tells the story of the kingdom of King Hrothgar which is currently being terrorized by a monster named Grendel, help comes in the form of mighty Beowulf, it is his job to slay the monster, but with the death of the monster comes new problems to the powerful hero, the story is very interesting, with a lot of action and adventure that will leave you on the edge of your seat. The cast is just wonderful, Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn and Ray Winstone everybody with their animated character and giving stunning performances. This is a movie definitely worth to see for the story and the animation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-236

ur6208088

title: visually incredible, excellent animation, and epic movie. review: Beowulf is the proof of what can be done with animation nowadays, a movie that seems to be acted by real people but that is actually made completely by cgi. A film that follows the same line as 300. Beowulf tells the story of the kingdom of King Hrothgar which is currently being terrorized by a monster named Grendel, help comes in the form of mighty Beowulf, it is his job to slay the monster, but with the death of the monster comes new problems to the powerful hero, the story is very interesting, with a lot of action and adventure that will leave you on the edge of your seat. The cast is just wonderful, Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn and Ray Winstone everybody with their animated character and giving stunning performances. This is a movie definitely worth to see for the story and the animation.

Hollywood slayeth another classic

tt0442933

"Beowulf" has survived countless translations, adaptations, debates, interpretations, and readings, and it finally has reached the Silver Screen. Promoted with a beautiful series of posters and a couple of mystifying previews, I wondered whether it would be a successful production.Successful is a matter now of perspective and interpretation. If the film brings in the dollars, it will be clearly referred as a hit. On the other hand, purists and other more discerning individuals may have a bit of a problem with some of what's going on here.In this version, there are some points to admire, including a rather sharp technical 3-D version that highlights some of the production values. There are also a couple of amusing moments, in addition to many rather puzzling changes to the original text. In particular the aversion of the main characters to anything resembling clothes. There are moments when the audience might even wonder about the sexuality of the characters, and Hollywood managed to get a PG-13 rating for this movie.Video game addicts might find some fun in the rather loose adaptation of the classic poem, which is now devoid of soul and engaging action. There are some amusing moments when we see a very thin plot involving a mythical hero and a few rather pesky monsters, and their bewitching mother.Sadly, the action is few and far in between, with most of it happening because the audience gets to exercise their neck muscles avoid being picked or poked at with the many objects Zemeckis managed to "place" in front of the camera to showcase the 3-D effects. There is very little memorable in the film, with so much wasted acting talent. Winstone, Wright Penn, and Hopkins are among the casualties of a program that has improved somewhat since "The Polar Express" but still manages to show the characters as if they had way too much mead... It looks like stuff is way to powerful to ever lose that glazed look that was spooky in "Express" and is rather distracting in this movie."Beowulf" is not a classic or a thriller or a very entertaining film. It's another pretty package that fails to deliver what in essence is a timeless tale of the eternal conflict between good and evil. Yet, I do understand that Angelina Jolie's looks is definitely a terrible thing to waste, and was Beowulf Greek? I thought this was a Nordic legend...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-59

ur2115026

title: Hollywood slayeth another classic review: "Beowulf" has survived countless translations, adaptations, debates, interpretations, and readings, and it finally has reached the Silver Screen. Promoted with a beautiful series of posters and a couple of mystifying previews, I wondered whether it would be a successful production.Successful is a matter now of perspective and interpretation. If the film brings in the dollars, it will be clearly referred as a hit. On the other hand, purists and other more discerning individuals may have a bit of a problem with some of what's going on here.In this version, there are some points to admire, including a rather sharp technical 3-D version that highlights some of the production values. There are also a couple of amusing moments, in addition to many rather puzzling changes to the original text. In particular the aversion of the main characters to anything resembling clothes. There are moments when the audience might even wonder about the sexuality of the characters, and Hollywood managed to get a PG-13 rating for this movie.Video game addicts might find some fun in the rather loose adaptation of the classic poem, which is now devoid of soul and engaging action. There are some amusing moments when we see a very thin plot involving a mythical hero and a few rather pesky monsters, and their bewitching mother.Sadly, the action is few and far in between, with most of it happening because the audience gets to exercise their neck muscles avoid being picked or poked at with the many objects Zemeckis managed to "place" in front of the camera to showcase the 3-D effects. There is very little memorable in the film, with so much wasted acting talent. Winstone, Wright Penn, and Hopkins are among the casualties of a program that has improved somewhat since "The Polar Express" but still manages to show the characters as if they had way too much mead... It looks like stuff is way to powerful to ever lose that glazed look that was spooky in "Express" and is rather distracting in this movie."Beowulf" is not a classic or a thriller or a very entertaining film. It's another pretty package that fails to deliver what in essence is a timeless tale of the eternal conflict between good and evil. Yet, I do understand that Angelina Jolie's looks is definitely a terrible thing to waste, and was Beowulf Greek? I thought this was a Nordic legend...

Could have been great...

tt0442933

The animation is interesting, much like A Scanner Darkly. Beowulf is a character cursed by pride, vanity, and lust, among other things. While you may find yourself cheering for him in battle, it is difficult to sympathize with him. And, while it may be a moot point when it comes to the conflict, one wonders where these beasts come from (especially Grendel's mother) and what drives them. In sum, the forces of good are not that good and the forces of evil largely remain unknown. What reaction does this produce for the viewer? Mostly, boredom. The action scenes that are supposed to be intense lose intensity in the midst of so much silliness. When Beowulf fights Grendel, all you will be able to think is, "Why does he have to fight naked?" and, "Is he really letting his naked body rub up against that disgusting thing?" I could go on...Still, it's much better than the horrible films "Beowulf" with Christopher Lambert and "Beowulf & Grendel".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-499

ur13538926

title: Could have been great... review: The animation is interesting, much like A Scanner Darkly. Beowulf is a character cursed by pride, vanity, and lust, among other things. While you may find yourself cheering for him in battle, it is difficult to sympathize with him. And, while it may be a moot point when it comes to the conflict, one wonders where these beasts come from (especially Grendel's mother) and what drives them. In sum, the forces of good are not that good and the forces of evil largely remain unknown. What reaction does this produce for the viewer? Mostly, boredom. The action scenes that are supposed to be intense lose intensity in the midst of so much silliness. When Beowulf fights Grendel, all you will be able to think is, "Why does he have to fight naked?" and, "Is he really letting his naked body rub up against that disgusting thing?" I could go on...Still, it's much better than the horrible films "Beowulf" with Christopher Lambert and "Beowulf & Grendel".

Looks wonderful, but heart and magic is missing

tt0442933

Beowulf, directed by Robert Zemeckis, is based on the old legend of a warrior who travels to fight a demon, but then makes a deal with the demon's mother,that will have terrible consequences years later.....The script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery is a good one. The actors, whom I understand were filmed in motion-capture suits and the animated give good vocal performances. The movie action scenes wouldn't have looked out of place in some live action movies.So why doesn't it quite work??The answer lies in it's greatest strength : the animation. The look of the film is stunning. It's one of the best-looking CGI-animated movies ever. It raises the bar for whatever follows it. HOWEVER, the animation robs the story of it's magic and heart. In trying to look great (which it does), it leave behind characters that you don't connect with. The magic of, for example Stardust (another Gaiman story), The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Excalibur is missing.As I said, the actors do their part well, even if the computer animated version of Ray Winstone as Beowulf looks more like Sean Bean, and Angelina Jolie looks sexy as hell in animation as in real life! Zemeckis, directs well and if he'd done it live action it would have been a thrilling movie.As a new level in animation, it is superb. I just wish the animation could have left in some magic and heart in the story. Then it would have been a masterpiece.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-170

ur0680065

title: Looks wonderful, but heart and magic is missing review: Beowulf, directed by Robert Zemeckis, is based on the old legend of a warrior who travels to fight a demon, but then makes a deal with the demon's mother,that will have terrible consequences years later.....The script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery is a good one. The actors, whom I understand were filmed in motion-capture suits and the animated give good vocal performances. The movie action scenes wouldn't have looked out of place in some live action movies.So why doesn't it quite work??The answer lies in it's greatest strength : the animation. The look of the film is stunning. It's one of the best-looking CGI-animated movies ever. It raises the bar for whatever follows it. HOWEVER, the animation robs the story of it's magic and heart. In trying to look great (which it does), it leave behind characters that you don't connect with. The magic of, for example Stardust (another Gaiman story), The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Excalibur is missing.As I said, the actors do their part well, even if the computer animated version of Ray Winstone as Beowulf looks more like Sean Bean, and Angelina Jolie looks sexy as hell in animation as in real life! Zemeckis, directs well and if he'd done it live action it would have been a thrilling movie.As a new level in animation, it is superb. I just wish the animation could have left in some magic and heart in the story. Then it would have been a masterpiece.

Beowulf in 3D - partly

tt0442933

First of all 3D is not a gimmick - without it this type of movie goes straight to XBox without a cinematic release. While Beowulf is just another Lord of the Rings wannabe, neither true to the source material nor actually a film - this is what the next few years hold.Overall the movie is great entertainment. There is a neat enough plot, the effects are fairly spectacular. And it probably hangs together a bit better than 300. It doesn't have the finesse of Sin City - and 3D cannot cover the usual Hollywood film weaknesses. But at no point does it let up.We now have the three directions that all other blockbusters will go. CGI as realisation (Lord of the Rings, Transformers), CGI as style maker (Sin City, 300) and CGI as everything (Beowulf, Final Fantasy). There doesn't seem to be room for using CGI in just a few scenes anymore. No room for anything else.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-280

ur1633357

title: Beowulf in 3D - partly review: First of all 3D is not a gimmick - without it this type of movie goes straight to XBox without a cinematic release. While Beowulf is just another Lord of the Rings wannabe, neither true to the source material nor actually a film - this is what the next few years hold.Overall the movie is great entertainment. There is a neat enough plot, the effects are fairly spectacular. And it probably hangs together a bit better than 300. It doesn't have the finesse of Sin City - and 3D cannot cover the usual Hollywood film weaknesses. But at no point does it let up.We now have the three directions that all other blockbusters will go. CGI as realisation (Lord of the Rings, Transformers), CGI as style maker (Sin City, 300) and CGI as everything (Beowulf, Final Fantasy). There doesn't seem to be room for using CGI in just a few scenes anymore. No room for anything else.

Great visuals coupled with an 'ok' story ...

tt0442933

I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D and the opening images were pretty amazing. However, as the story went on, I began to wonder if the effects would make up for a not-quite-so engaging story. My answer is ... not really.I'm glad I saw it, but I take out the 3D effects, I'd drop the rating to a "5". If I take out the rich visual details, I might drop it to a "4.5".The one thing that happens with great animation and effects is that after a while, you kind of get used to them and they fade to the background. That's what happened here. What one is left with are the characters and story.I can't speak for anyone else, but I really didn't relate to any of characters. Given that the story is based on a poem, it's clear why the characters might be very limited.The same is true for the story. I can see how it stems from a good tale, but the story was delivered in only a "slightly above average" manner.The positives are all about the effects: great 3D effects, great action scenes, stunning backgrounds and fantastic facial details. The people behind this aspect of the movie did an amazing job. I also applaud the filmmakers in finally introducing some animation material that goes clearly beyond a "G" rated audience.If you're a 3D enthusiast, you need no recommendation - see it! For everyone else, my recommendation is to see only the 3D version and only if you enjoy great visual effects.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-194

ur5146276

title: Great visuals coupled with an 'ok' story ... review: I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D and the opening images were pretty amazing. However, as the story went on, I began to wonder if the effects would make up for a not-quite-so engaging story. My answer is ... not really.I'm glad I saw it, but I take out the 3D effects, I'd drop the rating to a "5". If I take out the rich visual details, I might drop it to a "4.5".The one thing that happens with great animation and effects is that after a while, you kind of get used to them and they fade to the background. That's what happened here. What one is left with are the characters and story.I can't speak for anyone else, but I really didn't relate to any of characters. Given that the story is based on a poem, it's clear why the characters might be very limited.The same is true for the story. I can see how it stems from a good tale, but the story was delivered in only a "slightly above average" manner.The positives are all about the effects: great 3D effects, great action scenes, stunning backgrounds and fantastic facial details. The people behind this aspect of the movie did an amazing job. I also applaud the filmmakers in finally introducing some animation material that goes clearly beyond a "G" rated audience.If you're a 3D enthusiast, you need no recommendation - see it! For everyone else, my recommendation is to see only the 3D version and only if you enjoy great visual effects.

To CGI or Not to CGI, that is the question?

tt0442933

I have read Beowulf a couple of times. It's great northern European mythology, and mandatory reading when you are young in my opinion (Along with Norse, Greek and Roman Mythology as well). And though the movie wants to re-write some of the epic, you will need to separate the Hollywood version from the beautiful measure of the original works. Being a work of CGI, you will also have to allow for the flaws of pure CGI work. Very stylized and beautifully colored, it is an epic adventure that elevated Zemeckis' previous work "The Polar Express" to a new level. Polar was beautifully modeled after Chris Van Allsburg illustrations for his book, but Zemeckis' adaptation to the story went a little over the top when it became a musical. Even though most of Beowulf's story line is answered here, it did make me pause and wonder:Why didn't Robert Zemeckis just direct this thing in real life instead of virtual?With the capabilities of dropping in CGI into real life action, this telling of the story could have had so much more of an impact if the expressions were more poignant. Look what he did with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"? Zemeckis is fully capable of it. Also, to add to this, when you have CGI characters like Jacksons Gollum and King Kong to compare notes with, the modeling here just isn't up to snuff. I felt the entire movie came off like a gigantic "cut-scene" to a video game than a full featured animated project. I can only give this a little better than a good, hence the exclamation. I do this sadly. You really should see this in a theater, bigger than life. The dragon is excellent, the ugly v/s the beautiful is wild, the sequencing is uneven, though at the end it takes you on a great ride. Oh, and for you people that want to go see Angela Jolie nekkid? IT'S CGI!!! I've seen harder stuff on Fox networks! Seeing my wife and I saw this as a matinée, the crowd was on the sparse side and there was literally no kids present. I couldn't get a solid feeling from the audience though most people as they left seemed genuinely happy with their experience. I'm sure it was PG13'd because of the sequences with Angela, otherwise it would be a solid PG. I wouldn't suggest this for a kid under 8.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-149

ur0396298

title: To CGI or Not to CGI, that is the question? review: I have read Beowulf a couple of times. It's great northern European mythology, and mandatory reading when you are young in my opinion (Along with Norse, Greek and Roman Mythology as well). And though the movie wants to re-write some of the epic, you will need to separate the Hollywood version from the beautiful measure of the original works. Being a work of CGI, you will also have to allow for the flaws of pure CGI work. Very stylized and beautifully colored, it is an epic adventure that elevated Zemeckis' previous work "The Polar Express" to a new level. Polar was beautifully modeled after Chris Van Allsburg illustrations for his book, but Zemeckis' adaptation to the story went a little over the top when it became a musical. Even though most of Beowulf's story line is answered here, it did make me pause and wonder:Why didn't Robert Zemeckis just direct this thing in real life instead of virtual?With the capabilities of dropping in CGI into real life action, this telling of the story could have had so much more of an impact if the expressions were more poignant. Look what he did with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"? Zemeckis is fully capable of it. Also, to add to this, when you have CGI characters like Jacksons Gollum and King Kong to compare notes with, the modeling here just isn't up to snuff. I felt the entire movie came off like a gigantic "cut-scene" to a video game than a full featured animated project. I can only give this a little better than a good, hence the exclamation. I do this sadly. You really should see this in a theater, bigger than life. The dragon is excellent, the ugly v/s the beautiful is wild, the sequencing is uneven, though at the end it takes you on a great ride. Oh, and for you people that want to go see Angela Jolie nekkid? IT'S CGI!!! I've seen harder stuff on Fox networks! Seeing my wife and I saw this as a matinée, the crowd was on the sparse side and there was literally no kids present. I couldn't get a solid feeling from the audience though most people as they left seemed genuinely happy with their experience. I'm sure it was PG13'd because of the sequences with Angela, otherwise it would be a solid PG. I wouldn't suggest this for a kid under 8.

Not All Poetry Translates to Greatness

tt0442933

When I first heard that a movie version of the old English epic poem Beowulf was being made, and that its screenplay was going to be by the same author of Stardust, I immediately knew that I wanted to see it. In research I found that the movie was going to be made using a progressing style of filming called motion capture (used previously in the family Christmas movie The Polar Express) in which movements of actors are digitally recorded and then animated over, it seemed like it might be a good idea, and the fact that the movie was being put through all sorts of editing to keep it PG-13 made me believe that perhaps this wouldn't be just another "fit-as-much-blood-into-this-as-possible" type of action film.Although I have to admit that the movie was entertaining and the special effects beyond belief, overall the film was disappointing. Improved as the motion capture effect was, the humans' movements were floppy and almost comical, I was reminded forcefully of the Shrek movies where the humans have overly-thick sausage fingers and sharp, unnatural movements. The only relief from these human images was close-ups of the characters faces where the detail was so rich it was almost impossible to tell if the image was real or computer generated. Real human actors would have done much better.Another setback which utterly destroyed what would have otherwise been a successfully entertaining first half was the fact that the monster Grendel, which was the main reason for Beowulf's heroics, was laughable. Given a human voice (and a whiny one at that), Grendel pitifully screams his way through the first fight in which he demolished half the population of the village he's attacking. Rather than grimacing at the fact that he tears a person in half at one point, the audience laughed at how bad his presence was. Even I found him annoying.And the rating? The most shocking part of the film was the fact that it was rated PG-13. So full of violence was this movie that a family in the theater with me left before the end of the film. As I said before, a person is ripped in half right before our eyes, twenty-something people are hung from the ceiling with their skin torn off and blood dripping down their bodies. What were they thinking when they gave the rating? I don't suggest this movie for younger brothers or sisters.Disappointing though it was, the movie, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, and Crispin Glover, wasn't a total loss and was actually pretty decent when you got past all its flaws…and bad first half. The only justification for going to see it in theaters is to fully appreciate the beauty with which the backgrounds and other scenery were made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-341

ur17943588

title: Not All Poetry Translates to Greatness review: When I first heard that a movie version of the old English epic poem Beowulf was being made, and that its screenplay was going to be by the same author of Stardust, I immediately knew that I wanted to see it. In research I found that the movie was going to be made using a progressing style of filming called motion capture (used previously in the family Christmas movie The Polar Express) in which movements of actors are digitally recorded and then animated over, it seemed like it might be a good idea, and the fact that the movie was being put through all sorts of editing to keep it PG-13 made me believe that perhaps this wouldn't be just another "fit-as-much-blood-into-this-as-possible" type of action film.Although I have to admit that the movie was entertaining and the special effects beyond belief, overall the film was disappointing. Improved as the motion capture effect was, the humans' movements were floppy and almost comical, I was reminded forcefully of the Shrek movies where the humans have overly-thick sausage fingers and sharp, unnatural movements. The only relief from these human images was close-ups of the characters faces where the detail was so rich it was almost impossible to tell if the image was real or computer generated. Real human actors would have done much better.Another setback which utterly destroyed what would have otherwise been a successfully entertaining first half was the fact that the monster Grendel, which was the main reason for Beowulf's heroics, was laughable. Given a human voice (and a whiny one at that), Grendel pitifully screams his way through the first fight in which he demolished half the population of the village he's attacking. Rather than grimacing at the fact that he tears a person in half at one point, the audience laughed at how bad his presence was. Even I found him annoying.And the rating? The most shocking part of the film was the fact that it was rated PG-13. So full of violence was this movie that a family in the theater with me left before the end of the film. As I said before, a person is ripped in half right before our eyes, twenty-something people are hung from the ceiling with their skin torn off and blood dripping down their bodies. What were they thinking when they gave the rating? I don't suggest this movie for younger brothers or sisters.Disappointing though it was, the movie, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, and Crispin Glover, wasn't a total loss and was actually pretty decent when you got past all its flaws…and bad first half. The only justification for going to see it in theaters is to fully appreciate the beauty with which the backgrounds and other scenery were made.

Silly popcorn flick.

tt0442933

When a enjoy a movie, I say so, when I really enjoy a movie, I rave about it (No country for old men).When I have other thoughts about a movie, I trash it- so here goes.I thought it was cool for the first five to ten minutes. I thought it might be worth watching. . and then Beowolf turned up.I'm sure other reviewers have mentioned most of this, so I'll just break it down:The good- the first five to ten minutes.The bad:Bad voice acting, unnecessary adult graphics and dialog. Terrible voice acting from Ray Winstone Silly plot etc . . It's yet another example, among the many, how you cannot, simply cannot use flashy visuals to make a movie. It just becomes silly and hollow. It's just embarrassing to hear macho, bravado detailing how Beowolf killed nine sea monsters and then Grendel's mother. It *is* amusing how they manage to block the view of Beowolf's genitals with cunning shot after cunning shot. I might add that it was fun to look upon a naked and fake, but voluptuous looking (and fake) Angelina Jolie.Anyway, back to the thread. I found this movie to be extremely mediocre. It actually makes it worse that they used some fun and very pretty animation with such an atrocious script.Ah well, perhaps they might use this technology, refine it and make better flicks.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-307

ur2378166

title: Silly popcorn flick. review: When a enjoy a movie, I say so, when I really enjoy a movie, I rave about it (No country for old men).When I have other thoughts about a movie, I trash it- so here goes.I thought it was cool for the first five to ten minutes. I thought it might be worth watching. . and then Beowolf turned up.I'm sure other reviewers have mentioned most of this, so I'll just break it down:The good- the first five to ten minutes.The bad:Bad voice acting, unnecessary adult graphics and dialog. Terrible voice acting from Ray Winstone Silly plot etc . . It's yet another example, among the many, how you cannot, simply cannot use flashy visuals to make a movie. It just becomes silly and hollow. It's just embarrassing to hear macho, bravado detailing how Beowolf killed nine sea monsters and then Grendel's mother. It *is* amusing how they manage to block the view of Beowolf's genitals with cunning shot after cunning shot. I might add that it was fun to look upon a naked and fake, but voluptuous looking (and fake) Angelina Jolie.Anyway, back to the thread. I found this movie to be extremely mediocre. It actually makes it worse that they used some fun and very pretty animation with such an atrocious script.Ah well, perhaps they might use this technology, refine it and make better flicks.

It's a PG-13 movie with a pulse.

tt0442933

I was absolutely sickened to my stomach after just seeing the first few minutes of the unrated film during the Grendel sequence. It's strange because I was able to sit through 300 with all the dismemberment's and only feel entertained, but for some reason the whole thing with the torn up dude screaming that bloodcurdling scream while tearing other people to shreds just made me feel ill. Of course maybe it didn't help that I was listening to an ICP greatest hits CD while this was on. Some of you are probably thinking why was I listening to a CD while I was watching a movie and to tell you the truth I wasn't expecting too much out of this film. It was my dad's idea to buy it. I took one look at the cover and thought to myself "... oh great, another sword and monsters, CGI obsessed fantasy movie to keep the nerds occupied." Man was I in for a jolt. This movie is not for children... especial children. Honestly I was afraid of getting nightmares and I'm 17. The footage is intense the first time I saw it. Let me give some examples; in the first Grendel scene the Grendel rips a dude in half throws one half away then slurps up the blood a guts in the upper torso then throws it down and the dead body looks like a deflated balloon, in the second Grendel fight scene he slowly bites a dudes head off then starts munching it, in the last minutes of the fight scene between Beowulf and the golden dragon Beowulf partially slices off part of his left arm to better reach the dragon's heart and you can see it barely hanging on by a thread. (That scene was just ill.) At least the film makers took this project seriously and just might have succeeded in making a classic. There are some unique and memorable scenes like when Beowulf beats the Grendel to death naked. Sometimes I wish I could beat a terrifying monster to death without wearing any clothes. The special effects are actually quite realistic despite the fact that it's all CGI. In the dragon fight you can actually see the liveliness of the dragon by the way the dragon's wings glisten in the sun. When the dragon set someone on fire it would look so haunting as if someone actually was being burned alive and in here lies the seriousness of this movie. It gets a lot of criticism because of changes it made in contrast to the poem. But the characters are so cool at play it off it becomes forgivable on some level.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-431

ur18551717

title: It's a PG-13 movie with a pulse. review: I was absolutely sickened to my stomach after just seeing the first few minutes of the unrated film during the Grendel sequence. It's strange because I was able to sit through 300 with all the dismemberment's and only feel entertained, but for some reason the whole thing with the torn up dude screaming that bloodcurdling scream while tearing other people to shreds just made me feel ill. Of course maybe it didn't help that I was listening to an ICP greatest hits CD while this was on. Some of you are probably thinking why was I listening to a CD while I was watching a movie and to tell you the truth I wasn't expecting too much out of this film. It was my dad's idea to buy it. I took one look at the cover and thought to myself "... oh great, another sword and monsters, CGI obsessed fantasy movie to keep the nerds occupied." Man was I in for a jolt. This movie is not for children... especial children. Honestly I was afraid of getting nightmares and I'm 17. The footage is intense the first time I saw it. Let me give some examples; in the first Grendel scene the Grendel rips a dude in half throws one half away then slurps up the blood a guts in the upper torso then throws it down and the dead body looks like a deflated balloon, in the second Grendel fight scene he slowly bites a dudes head off then starts munching it, in the last minutes of the fight scene between Beowulf and the golden dragon Beowulf partially slices off part of his left arm to better reach the dragon's heart and you can see it barely hanging on by a thread. (That scene was just ill.) At least the film makers took this project seriously and just might have succeeded in making a classic. There are some unique and memorable scenes like when Beowulf beats the Grendel to death naked. Sometimes I wish I could beat a terrifying monster to death without wearing any clothes. The special effects are actually quite realistic despite the fact that it's all CGI. In the dragon fight you can actually see the liveliness of the dragon by the way the dragon's wings glisten in the sun. When the dragon set someone on fire it would look so haunting as if someone actually was being burned alive and in here lies the seriousness of this movie. It gets a lot of criticism because of changes it made in contrast to the poem. But the characters are so cool at play it off it becomes forgivable on some level.

The future of action and fantasy films as we know it, 8/10

tt0442933

*CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS*Just like the director's previous films "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and "Back to the Future." "Beowulf" is a movie both entertaining and visually spectacular. And it's been a very long time for an animated movie to debut strictly for adults. Ray Winestone is wonderful as Beowulf and so is Crispin Glover as the grotesque and violent Grendel. The two actors are probably the ones with the most body tweaking through the CGI process. Still they display great voice work. Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn, Brendan Gleeson, and John Malkovich are all nice touches too.The plot has monumental differences from the epic poems. But this film could have taken a whole step backwards by having violence cleaned up as if this was a Disney film. Which it is not. And if you are unwise to compare this movie to a video game you'd better take a look at the cut scenes in parts you don't play. Obviously the video sequences are afterthoughts. Video game designers don't really care about face expressions, lip movements, or body language, only the actual game play. Unlike "Beowulf" which is computer animation at its best. Sometimes you can mistake it for being a live action movie. With lifelike violence and male and female nudity. Of course, we will see more of this film-making in the future, because when "Beowulf" is talking in one scene and fighting a dragon in another, that character would need a CGI double for that action scene. But if Winestone is already rendered in CGI, there is no doubling!! People can believe that the "actor" can clearly be seen in every shot. Do yourself a favor and see this film. I made the mistake of seeing it on the normal screen when it should really be seen in 3-D. Incredible characters, action scenes, scenery, monsters, and storytelling.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-275

ur15531810

title: The future of action and fantasy films as we know it, 8/10 review: *CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS*Just like the director's previous films "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and "Back to the Future." "Beowulf" is a movie both entertaining and visually spectacular. And it's been a very long time for an animated movie to debut strictly for adults. Ray Winestone is wonderful as Beowulf and so is Crispin Glover as the grotesque and violent Grendel. The two actors are probably the ones with the most body tweaking through the CGI process. Still they display great voice work. Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn, Brendan Gleeson, and John Malkovich are all nice touches too.The plot has monumental differences from the epic poems. But this film could have taken a whole step backwards by having violence cleaned up as if this was a Disney film. Which it is not. And if you are unwise to compare this movie to a video game you'd better take a look at the cut scenes in parts you don't play. Obviously the video sequences are afterthoughts. Video game designers don't really care about face expressions, lip movements, or body language, only the actual game play. Unlike "Beowulf" which is computer animation at its best. Sometimes you can mistake it for being a live action movie. With lifelike violence and male and female nudity. Of course, we will see more of this film-making in the future, because when "Beowulf" is talking in one scene and fighting a dragon in another, that character would need a CGI double for that action scene. But if Winestone is already rendered in CGI, there is no doubling!! People can believe that the "actor" can clearly be seen in every shot. Do yourself a favor and see this film. I made the mistake of seeing it on the normal screen when it should really be seen in 3-D. Incredible characters, action scenes, scenery, monsters, and storytelling.

Well, it certainly looks nice

tt0442933

Here we have a film which is a triumph of animation. Unfortunately it is not a triumph of storytelling. The animation is so good, often eerily lifelike, that it is almost worth seeing the film for that reason alone. But be forewarned that in order to see all the impressive visuals you're going to have to sit through a story which fails to engage. And if you're a Beowulf purist, because I'm sure there is such a thing, be prepared to be disappointed as this film version of the story strays in very significant ways from the original text. I suppose it's understandable that the filmmakers would find it necessary to jazz up such an ancient story for a modern audience. But so many of the changes seem pointless and any attempt to liven things up seems to have failed because, at least as it is presented in this film, the story of Beowulf is a rather dull one. All the eye-catching animation can't hide the fact that this story really drags.Despite the failings of the story, it must be said that there are some fine performances in this film, although seeing as the actors are not actually "there" on the screen, it's a whole different kind of performance than we're used to. But the king Hrothgar sure looks and sounds like Anthony Hopkins, now doesn't he? And hey, isn't that Brendan Gleeson? And Robin Wright Penn? And Angelina Jolie, only all painted up gold and with high-heeled feet? Hopkins and Gleeson and all the others do a fine job of bringing their not-quite-real versions of themselves to life. As Beowulf himself, Ray Winstone may look less like himself than the others but his performance is fine as well. And a special mention for Crispin Glover, who I am fairly certain is not in fact a giant, hideous monster in real life but who here does a good job giving some life and personality to the monster Grendel. But still, despite the impressive cast and the impressive way that cast is brought to animated life, the film really doesn't work. The story fails to take off and for much too much of the time we're left just biding time until the next admittedly visually stunning battle scene. For all the obvious effort that went into the animation you'll end up wishing a little more attention had been paid to the story itself. The story is where this movie fails.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-226

ur0915482

title: Well, it certainly looks nice review: Here we have a film which is a triumph of animation. Unfortunately it is not a triumph of storytelling. The animation is so good, often eerily lifelike, that it is almost worth seeing the film for that reason alone. But be forewarned that in order to see all the impressive visuals you're going to have to sit through a story which fails to engage. And if you're a Beowulf purist, because I'm sure there is such a thing, be prepared to be disappointed as this film version of the story strays in very significant ways from the original text. I suppose it's understandable that the filmmakers would find it necessary to jazz up such an ancient story for a modern audience. But so many of the changes seem pointless and any attempt to liven things up seems to have failed because, at least as it is presented in this film, the story of Beowulf is a rather dull one. All the eye-catching animation can't hide the fact that this story really drags.Despite the failings of the story, it must be said that there are some fine performances in this film, although seeing as the actors are not actually "there" on the screen, it's a whole different kind of performance than we're used to. But the king Hrothgar sure looks and sounds like Anthony Hopkins, now doesn't he? And hey, isn't that Brendan Gleeson? And Robin Wright Penn? And Angelina Jolie, only all painted up gold and with high-heeled feet? Hopkins and Gleeson and all the others do a fine job of bringing their not-quite-real versions of themselves to life. As Beowulf himself, Ray Winstone may look less like himself than the others but his performance is fine as well. And a special mention for Crispin Glover, who I am fairly certain is not in fact a giant, hideous monster in real life but who here does a good job giving some life and personality to the monster Grendel. But still, despite the impressive cast and the impressive way that cast is brought to animated life, the film really doesn't work. The story fails to take off and for much too much of the time we're left just biding time until the next admittedly visually stunning battle scene. For all the obvious effort that went into the animation you'll end up wishing a little more attention had been paid to the story itself. The story is where this movie fails.

A valiant effort

tt0442933

Adapted very loosely from the original poem - without which we would not have the plot archetype of "band of heroic warriors travel into unknown territory to fight an unknown menace they may not be able to handle" that served writers so well in the centuries that followed, from the sword & sorcery epics to hard hitting science fiction action films like ALIENS (1986) and PREDATOR (1987) - big rugged muscle bound Beowulf (Ray Winstone) is asked by fat old has-been turned drunken degenerate King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) to kill a pesky monster known as Grendel (Crispin Glover) that's been terrorizing Hrothgar's kingdom. Beowulf does as asked - in the nude no less - then goes to kill the big whiny voice brute's mother (Angelina Jolie). The result? Grendle's mom, who appears to be a hot mama shape-shifter, seduces Beowulf, has sexual intercourse with him and then curses him. Hrothgar declares Beowulf his heir, since he has no sons of his own, leaves the kingdom and his lovely, love lorn wife Queen Wealthow (Robin Wright Penn) to big B before committing suicide. Years later, an old but still very buff Beowulf finds he must confront a dragon, which turns out to be the shape-shifting son he had with Grendel's mom. Turns out Hrothgar made the same mistake as Beowulf many years ago - he thought with his balls instead of with his brains, slept with Grendel's mom, Grendel was the son of that encounter, and being terrorized by Grendel was Hrothgar's curse, and probably another reason why his wife wouldn't sleep with him, besides the fact that - yet again - Wealthow was a beautiful young lady trapped in a loveless marriage to a man old enough to be her father (or possibly grandfather). By this point, old Beowulf's relationship with the equally old queen is also on the rocks and he's taken to sleeping around with wenches (one particular wench played by Alison Lohman), just as Hrothgar did, but before he goes off to fight the dragon, he tries to reconcile with her. Beowulf fights the dragon - cutting his arm off in the process - dies a hero's death, names his long time sensible best friend Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson) to take his place as king, then at the end Wiglaf is confronted by Grendel's mother, and it is left ambiguous as to whether Wiglaf will succumb to temptation just as Beowulf and Hrothgar did, or if Wiglaf will have the good sense to stay away from the horrid she-demon, thus ending the cycle.Entertaining as throw away entertainment, but those looking for an honest adaptation of the original poem may be disappointed with the liberties taken. Though Beowulf is still one tough cookie, he's not quite as heroic as the original poem made him out to be, as the screenplay chooses to play him up as a flawed, self-loathing & regretful anti-hero, probably in hopes of making him more appealing to the cynical, jaded audiences of the 21st century, yet you can't help but wonder if that basically defeats the purpose of what his character stands for in the original poem (films such as "Troy" and "Superman Returns" had a similar problem). Beowulf fighting naked came across as unintentionally funny seeing as how they had to keep hiding his frontal private parts with whatever objects are handy (while it's true he chose to fight without weapons against Grendel in the book, he did not strip himself naked to fight the monster); other bits of nudity (both male & female) or just outright exploitation (zooming in on a bar woman's twitching bosom) feels even more crass here than it would in live action, and reeks of desperation for attention, as if to say "Look! We're pure CGI but we're doing stuff with CGI that wasn't done in Shrek or Toy Story!", a desperation that would make even Ralph Bakshi (who made a similar attempt with animation & radioscopy decades ago) roll his eyes. Also, the original poem contained no romantic subplot between Beowulf and the queen, Hrothgar and his wife did have children, Beowulf killed Grendel's mom (he wore armor BTW) and while Beowulf did become king and die fighting a dragon, he became king of a different area, and the dragon was not his offspring. For all these creative liberties, they may as well have just changed all the names of the characters and called it something else (thinkg the 2004 bomb "King Arthur"). Beowulf himself looked quite real at times, as did certain props and backgrounds, but other characters were not so fortunate, as the CGI stop motion bit is clearly not completely ironed out yet (empty eyes, vacant stares, puffy faces, etc). The action sequences are quite good though; when they cut loose, they really cut loose. The "acting" as it were is decent. Film tries hard, I will give it that. Probably best watched as a separate entity unto itself than as a true adaptation of the poem.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-254

ur2293681

title: A valiant effort review: Adapted very loosely from the original poem - without which we would not have the plot archetype of "band of heroic warriors travel into unknown territory to fight an unknown menace they may not be able to handle" that served writers so well in the centuries that followed, from the sword & sorcery epics to hard hitting science fiction action films like ALIENS (1986) and PREDATOR (1987) - big rugged muscle bound Beowulf (Ray Winstone) is asked by fat old has-been turned drunken degenerate King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) to kill a pesky monster known as Grendel (Crispin Glover) that's been terrorizing Hrothgar's kingdom. Beowulf does as asked - in the nude no less - then goes to kill the big whiny voice brute's mother (Angelina Jolie). The result? Grendle's mom, who appears to be a hot mama shape-shifter, seduces Beowulf, has sexual intercourse with him and then curses him. Hrothgar declares Beowulf his heir, since he has no sons of his own, leaves the kingdom and his lovely, love lorn wife Queen Wealthow (Robin Wright Penn) to big B before committing suicide. Years later, an old but still very buff Beowulf finds he must confront a dragon, which turns out to be the shape-shifting son he had with Grendel's mom. Turns out Hrothgar made the same mistake as Beowulf many years ago - he thought with his balls instead of with his brains, slept with Grendel's mom, Grendel was the son of that encounter, and being terrorized by Grendel was Hrothgar's curse, and probably another reason why his wife wouldn't sleep with him, besides the fact that - yet again - Wealthow was a beautiful young lady trapped in a loveless marriage to a man old enough to be her father (or possibly grandfather). By this point, old Beowulf's relationship with the equally old queen is also on the rocks and he's taken to sleeping around with wenches (one particular wench played by Alison Lohman), just as Hrothgar did, but before he goes off to fight the dragon, he tries to reconcile with her. Beowulf fights the dragon - cutting his arm off in the process - dies a hero's death, names his long time sensible best friend Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson) to take his place as king, then at the end Wiglaf is confronted by Grendel's mother, and it is left ambiguous as to whether Wiglaf will succumb to temptation just as Beowulf and Hrothgar did, or if Wiglaf will have the good sense to stay away from the horrid she-demon, thus ending the cycle.Entertaining as throw away entertainment, but those looking for an honest adaptation of the original poem may be disappointed with the liberties taken. Though Beowulf is still one tough cookie, he's not quite as heroic as the original poem made him out to be, as the screenplay chooses to play him up as a flawed, self-loathing & regretful anti-hero, probably in hopes of making him more appealing to the cynical, jaded audiences of the 21st century, yet you can't help but wonder if that basically defeats the purpose of what his character stands for in the original poem (films such as "Troy" and "Superman Returns" had a similar problem). Beowulf fighting naked came across as unintentionally funny seeing as how they had to keep hiding his frontal private parts with whatever objects are handy (while it's true he chose to fight without weapons against Grendel in the book, he did not strip himself naked to fight the monster); other bits of nudity (both male & female) or just outright exploitation (zooming in on a bar woman's twitching bosom) feels even more crass here than it would in live action, and reeks of desperation for attention, as if to say "Look! We're pure CGI but we're doing stuff with CGI that wasn't done in Shrek or Toy Story!", a desperation that would make even Ralph Bakshi (who made a similar attempt with animation & radioscopy decades ago) roll his eyes. Also, the original poem contained no romantic subplot between Beowulf and the queen, Hrothgar and his wife did have children, Beowulf killed Grendel's mom (he wore armor BTW) and while Beowulf did become king and die fighting a dragon, he became king of a different area, and the dragon was not his offspring. For all these creative liberties, they may as well have just changed all the names of the characters and called it something else (thinkg the 2004 bomb "King Arthur"). Beowulf himself looked quite real at times, as did certain props and backgrounds, but other characters were not so fortunate, as the CGI stop motion bit is clearly not completely ironed out yet (empty eyes, vacant stares, puffy faces, etc). The action sequences are quite good though; when they cut loose, they really cut loose. The "acting" as it were is decent. Film tries hard, I will give it that. Probably best watched as a separate entity unto itself than as a true adaptation of the poem.

Sins of the father…Beowulf

tt0442933

Let's start this out with the fact that my College Professor of World Civ had us read The Epic of Gilgamesh rather than the one adapted here with Beowulf. So, I went into the film without really knowing anything of the story besides the monster Grendel and the obligatory pride as a curse, creating your own demons, etc. As shown on screen, it is obvious that the yarn is an ancient one. Besides the archaic traditions—Queens are inherited as the wife of all who take the crown?—it just feels dated and plods along as a result. I like the whole idea of our hero being his own worst enemy, but I would have enjoyed seeing a bit more conflict. The fight with Grendel and the dragon are both magnificent to behold, it's a shame then that the true orchestrator of the chaos, stunningly played by Angelina Jolie, is ultimately lacking in depth and competition. It actually feels like how I'm sure most students do when reading the epic poem…long-winded, repetitive, and missing the nonstop action our MTV-cultured minds love.If I were to compare the animation to something, I would not go to 300, as most seem to be doing. Sure the whole "I am BEOWULF!" thing is a direct rip-off, but the aesthetic and story is not. In my opinion, 300 blows this one out of the water, no question. To think of something similar, my mind goes to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a great little gem from almost a decade ago. The technology has come far since then, most notably with the fluidity of character movement, detail of liquids/hair/textures, and emotive ability in those moments that succeed with it. However, as far as looks go for the humans, I have to declare Final Fantasy the winner still. The faces in Beowulf continue to keep a plastic/rubber feel, giving the impression everyone had a facelift. Besides the hair on each face, especially the noses, the pores and skin quality so lifelike years ago looks creepy here, as it did in Robert Zemeckis' Polar Express, (I don't fault Monster House because it was stylish and cartoony, not attempting to be realistic).Those faults withstanding, it was a pleasure to view the film in IMAX-3D. Zemeckis utilizes the technology well, giving us moments of true depth. Whether flying through the tree branches, having a spear frozen in front of our eyes, watching bodies fall and flip towards us, and seeing blood splattered in our faces, we are thrown smack dab in the middle of the action. Water and blood are realistic and, along with fire and smoke, shown with nice field of vision, never seeming like a flat plane placed on top of the layer beneath it. The effects are so good, it might have been the best film I've seen using the gimmick. Having seen only three others, however, I'm not so sure that is too bold of a statement.As far as the acting goes, I think most performances are a bit too over-the-top. I almost wish all the characters were devoid of any likenesses to their real-life counterparts like our lead. It is just too distracting, leading my mind to wander and think of how the cgi person differs from the actor. This is especially true with John Malkovich's Unferth. They try to make him different enough, but the face is still there and the horrible Danish accent is just too much. The only really good turns, to me, were Ray Winstone, Brendan Gleeson, and Crispin Glover. I would add Robin Wright Penn to the list, but her smooth/taut face didn't allow for any nuance to go with her voice's portrayal. Winstone, as Beowulf is the best. With very little likeness, he is allowed to create a full figure. The facial are expressions genuine and moving, especially when he realizes the pact he made with the devil and later on when he puts his life on the line for those he loves. Gleeson is a stalwart of the craft and comes across much like he would if it was really he on screen, and Glover proves to be a master of elasticity and quirky movement. No one else could have been the stand-in for Grendel.Artistically, the film is stunning to behold. Everything seems to have been lifted from the story correctly. Jolie's devil is a disgusting creature only shown as beautiful through the warped minds of men—the use of reflections to show this fact is great. Also, the fact that our original King's curse of an heir was his shame, manifested by a hideous creature made to hear every word spoken about him through super hearing, and Beowulf's was his vanity, displayed by an Adonis of an offspring, showed the detail that went into the artistic direction. Unfortunately, while it visually held true to the tale, it might have adhered to the source a bit too much script-wise. It is a morality tale that drives its point home too forcefully, repeating itself often, leaving the audience cold and annoyed. If you want to see this film, do yourself a favor and spend the extra cash on the IMAX-3D experience. Without the visuals to preoccupy you, the film doesn't quite deliver. Our hero says to his wife, "Don't remember me as your King or a hero, but instead as a man, fallible and flawed." He could have said it about the movie itself, but instead of being modest and touching for his character, it is ultimately a derogatory view for the work, something I'm sure the filmmakers hoped would be seen as glorious.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-143

ur2020154

title: Sins of the father…Beowulf review: Let's start this out with the fact that my College Professor of World Civ had us read The Epic of Gilgamesh rather than the one adapted here with Beowulf. So, I went into the film without really knowing anything of the story besides the monster Grendel and the obligatory pride as a curse, creating your own demons, etc. As shown on screen, it is obvious that the yarn is an ancient one. Besides the archaic traditions—Queens are inherited as the wife of all who take the crown?—it just feels dated and plods along as a result. I like the whole idea of our hero being his own worst enemy, but I would have enjoyed seeing a bit more conflict. The fight with Grendel and the dragon are both magnificent to behold, it's a shame then that the true orchestrator of the chaos, stunningly played by Angelina Jolie, is ultimately lacking in depth and competition. It actually feels like how I'm sure most students do when reading the epic poem…long-winded, repetitive, and missing the nonstop action our MTV-cultured minds love.If I were to compare the animation to something, I would not go to 300, as most seem to be doing. Sure the whole "I am BEOWULF!" thing is a direct rip-off, but the aesthetic and story is not. In my opinion, 300 blows this one out of the water, no question. To think of something similar, my mind goes to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a great little gem from almost a decade ago. The technology has come far since then, most notably with the fluidity of character movement, detail of liquids/hair/textures, and emotive ability in those moments that succeed with it. However, as far as looks go for the humans, I have to declare Final Fantasy the winner still. The faces in Beowulf continue to keep a plastic/rubber feel, giving the impression everyone had a facelift. Besides the hair on each face, especially the noses, the pores and skin quality so lifelike years ago looks creepy here, as it did in Robert Zemeckis' Polar Express, (I don't fault Monster House because it was stylish and cartoony, not attempting to be realistic).Those faults withstanding, it was a pleasure to view the film in IMAX-3D. Zemeckis utilizes the technology well, giving us moments of true depth. Whether flying through the tree branches, having a spear frozen in front of our eyes, watching bodies fall and flip towards us, and seeing blood splattered in our faces, we are thrown smack dab in the middle of the action. Water and blood are realistic and, along with fire and smoke, shown with nice field of vision, never seeming like a flat plane placed on top of the layer beneath it. The effects are so good, it might have been the best film I've seen using the gimmick. Having seen only three others, however, I'm not so sure that is too bold of a statement.As far as the acting goes, I think most performances are a bit too over-the-top. I almost wish all the characters were devoid of any likenesses to their real-life counterparts like our lead. It is just too distracting, leading my mind to wander and think of how the cgi person differs from the actor. This is especially true with John Malkovich's Unferth. They try to make him different enough, but the face is still there and the horrible Danish accent is just too much. The only really good turns, to me, were Ray Winstone, Brendan Gleeson, and Crispin Glover. I would add Robin Wright Penn to the list, but her smooth/taut face didn't allow for any nuance to go with her voice's portrayal. Winstone, as Beowulf is the best. With very little likeness, he is allowed to create a full figure. The facial are expressions genuine and moving, especially when he realizes the pact he made with the devil and later on when he puts his life on the line for those he loves. Gleeson is a stalwart of the craft and comes across much like he would if it was really he on screen, and Glover proves to be a master of elasticity and quirky movement. No one else could have been the stand-in for Grendel.Artistically, the film is stunning to behold. Everything seems to have been lifted from the story correctly. Jolie's devil is a disgusting creature only shown as beautiful through the warped minds of men—the use of reflections to show this fact is great. Also, the fact that our original King's curse of an heir was his shame, manifested by a hideous creature made to hear every word spoken about him through super hearing, and Beowulf's was his vanity, displayed by an Adonis of an offspring, showed the detail that went into the artistic direction. Unfortunately, while it visually held true to the tale, it might have adhered to the source a bit too much script-wise. It is a morality tale that drives its point home too forcefully, repeating itself often, leaving the audience cold and annoyed. If you want to see this film, do yourself a favor and spend the extra cash on the IMAX-3D experience. Without the visuals to preoccupy you, the film doesn't quite deliver. Our hero says to his wife, "Don't remember me as your King or a hero, but instead as a man, fallible and flawed." He could have said it about the movie itself, but instead of being modest and touching for his character, it is ultimately a derogatory view for the work, something I'm sure the filmmakers hoped would be seen as glorious.

A huge let down on all aspects of what makes an epic tale

tt0442933

Beowulf is among the greatest and most well-known epic tales of Norse Mythology, but it only took me five minutes into the movie to realize that this film was not even close to as something grand. Why? To my surprise and disappointment, this movie was animated. Sure, animation isn't a big deal for a film along the lines of Shrek or Ratatouille, but not for a story like Beowulf. Beowulf is a very serious tale that covers many topics such as vengeance and forgiveness, cruelty and mercy, curses and revelations. I admit, this movie has some of those aspects, but it rather focuses on a corny, stylish animation work.The action and animation itself reminded me of a teen-rated video game rather than a masterwork. However, there were a couple of scenes in the movie of which some of the up closes of the actor's face in certain scenes look real rather than animated, particularly in the scene of where Beowulf encounters Grendel's mother. I don't know if this was digitized or not, but either way, I felt like I was brought back to a normal film in these scenes versus a silly cartoon.As with the story, rather than beginning with King Hrothgar murdering Grendel's father, it opens with the King having a party of drunkenness and very inappropriate nudity, particularly for an animation film. Then the party is suddenly raided by the giant Grendel. After this raid, which is quite bloody (especially for an animated film) and long ends Beowulf is finally introduced.Now, the movie does not explain why Grendel keeps attacking Hrothgar. In the myth, it was because he was responsible for Grendel's father's death. There is no sign or even an implication of this. As for Grendel, well all I can say is he looks like a giant mummy from The Mummy Returns and loves to yell at the top of his lungs. I felt no pain for him, rather an urge to say, "Shut your gull!" I don't want to even bother in trying to explain the rest of the story. It is mainly a combination of Beowulf's two great tales smashed together in under a two hour film.Since the story wasn't really developed well, the actors did not have much breathing room to really act. The monsters were evil and the good guys were heroes. Ray Winstone as Beowulf is pretty much like Gerard Butler was as King Leonardis from 300. He has a muscle-bound figure, loves to kill things, occasionally tries to be civil in politics, loves to walk around butt naked and shout drunkenly, "I am Beowulf!" I can't help but think of, "This is SPARTA!" Anthony Hopkins, as great an actor as he is, is an old, senile, drunken fool who can't stride from one chair to the next. Angelina Jolie, well, she's Angelina Jolie. She has a great body and speaks smoothly with her accent from Alexander. There's nothing worthwhile in this film, just a wasted epic that relies too much on the CGI department and has vivid images of sex and violence. I'm even more surprised that the great director Robert Zemechis of Back to the Future and Forrest Gump would direct this garbage.-1/10 I wish I can get my money back.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-179

ur3153189

title: A huge let down on all aspects of what makes an epic tale review: Beowulf is among the greatest and most well-known epic tales of Norse Mythology, but it only took me five minutes into the movie to realize that this film was not even close to as something grand. Why? To my surprise and disappointment, this movie was animated. Sure, animation isn't a big deal for a film along the lines of Shrek or Ratatouille, but not for a story like Beowulf. Beowulf is a very serious tale that covers many topics such as vengeance and forgiveness, cruelty and mercy, curses and revelations. I admit, this movie has some of those aspects, but it rather focuses on a corny, stylish animation work.The action and animation itself reminded me of a teen-rated video game rather than a masterwork. However, there were a couple of scenes in the movie of which some of the up closes of the actor's face in certain scenes look real rather than animated, particularly in the scene of where Beowulf encounters Grendel's mother. I don't know if this was digitized or not, but either way, I felt like I was brought back to a normal film in these scenes versus a silly cartoon.As with the story, rather than beginning with King Hrothgar murdering Grendel's father, it opens with the King having a party of drunkenness and very inappropriate nudity, particularly for an animation film. Then the party is suddenly raided by the giant Grendel. After this raid, which is quite bloody (especially for an animated film) and long ends Beowulf is finally introduced.Now, the movie does not explain why Grendel keeps attacking Hrothgar. In the myth, it was because he was responsible for Grendel's father's death. There is no sign or even an implication of this. As for Grendel, well all I can say is he looks like a giant mummy from The Mummy Returns and loves to yell at the top of his lungs. I felt no pain for him, rather an urge to say, "Shut your gull!" I don't want to even bother in trying to explain the rest of the story. It is mainly a combination of Beowulf's two great tales smashed together in under a two hour film.Since the story wasn't really developed well, the actors did not have much breathing room to really act. The monsters were evil and the good guys were heroes. Ray Winstone as Beowulf is pretty much like Gerard Butler was as King Leonardis from 300. He has a muscle-bound figure, loves to kill things, occasionally tries to be civil in politics, loves to walk around butt naked and shout drunkenly, "I am Beowulf!" I can't help but think of, "This is SPARTA!" Anthony Hopkins, as great an actor as he is, is an old, senile, drunken fool who can't stride from one chair to the next. Angelina Jolie, well, she's Angelina Jolie. She has a great body and speaks smoothly with her accent from Alexander. There's nothing worthwhile in this film, just a wasted epic that relies too much on the CGI department and has vivid images of sex and violence. I'm even more surprised that the great director Robert Zemechis of Back to the Future and Forrest Gump would direct this garbage.-1/10 I wish I can get my money back.

Despite all the Gaiman gore and humor, Beowulf surprisingly still feels empty.

tt0442933

Despite all the Gaiman gore and humor, the Robert Zemeckis-helmed Beowulf surprisingly still feels empty. The still-evolving CGI effects should not be blamed, since the first two installments of Shrek successfully delivered the warmth necessary to emotionally connect with its audience.Beowulf is a famous epic poem set in Denmark about the warrior Beowulf, who paints himself as a larger-than-life hero. He successfully defeats the monster Grendel, who has been going on a killing spree, however, beautiful women like the monster's mother is his ultimate weakness.Big stars like Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn and Anthony Hopkins headline this movie. But even with that and all the digital 3D hype it's brought (the level of detail is amazing, the blending of what's real and CGI is almost undetectable), what makes it still feel flat? There is nothing specific to pinpoint except for a "feeling": that the time spent watching it was not worth it.Also, while the horror portions were indeed frightening, more shocking is how the film was able to get away with just a PG-13 rating despite all the violence, gore, nudity and adult themes. Probably because it was mostly animated, but even when the animation was so close to reality? Just strange, that's all

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-116

ur10756301

title: Despite all the Gaiman gore and humor, Beowulf surprisingly still feels empty. review: Despite all the Gaiman gore and humor, the Robert Zemeckis-helmed Beowulf surprisingly still feels empty. The still-evolving CGI effects should not be blamed, since the first two installments of Shrek successfully delivered the warmth necessary to emotionally connect with its audience.Beowulf is a famous epic poem set in Denmark about the warrior Beowulf, who paints himself as a larger-than-life hero. He successfully defeats the monster Grendel, who has been going on a killing spree, however, beautiful women like the monster's mother is his ultimate weakness.Big stars like Angelina Jolie, Robin Wright Penn and Anthony Hopkins headline this movie. But even with that and all the digital 3D hype it's brought (the level of detail is amazing, the blending of what's real and CGI is almost undetectable), what makes it still feel flat? There is nothing specific to pinpoint except for a "feeling": that the time spent watching it was not worth it.Also, while the horror portions were indeed frightening, more shocking is how the film was able to get away with just a PG-13 rating despite all the violence, gore, nudity and adult themes. Probably because it was mostly animated, but even when the animation was so close to reality? Just strange, that's all

Great animation, good characters, and a dull, predictable plot.

tt0442933

"Beowulf" is not at all what the trailers portray it to be. They make it look like a nonstop action scene. Where there are a lot of action scenes, and they all are done very well, this movie is actually quite slow moving, and has very little plot for the long time it fills.The plot of "Beowulf" is an amazingly simple one. A creature kills many men during a party, and the king needs a hero, so here comes Beowulf. Beowulf slays the beast, but can he kill an oddly seductive animated Angelina Jolie, or will he give into his primal instincts....not a hard one to figure out. I'm not going to go too deep into the plot, simply because I don't want to spoil anything.The movie is split into two separate times, one a bit earlier than the other. The first half of the film was really enjoyable. I liked the characters I was being introduced to, the action was fun to watch, if not just to show off how much money they spent to make it look this good. The dialog was mildly amusing too. The second half was boring and predictable and led the movie nowhere. Where in the commercials it looks like this movie has nonstop action in many sets...it doesn't. The movie is mostly localized inside the King's mead hall, where much of the action and all of the drinking takes place. It was good that it took place in one area almost the entire movie because it gave the audience an intimate feel with the area, but it also never let us see what beautiful 3D CGI world that could have been created. The animation was lush and detailed, but that didn't make up for lack of story."Beowulf" could have been a grand and heroic tale, but instead was merely interesting animation, well choreographed action scenes, and a whole lot of nothing.My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****. 106 mins. PG-13 for animated nudity and violence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-62

ur4195782

title: Great animation, good characters, and a dull, predictable plot. review: "Beowulf" is not at all what the trailers portray it to be. They make it look like a nonstop action scene. Where there are a lot of action scenes, and they all are done very well, this movie is actually quite slow moving, and has very little plot for the long time it fills.The plot of "Beowulf" is an amazingly simple one. A creature kills many men during a party, and the king needs a hero, so here comes Beowulf. Beowulf slays the beast, but can he kill an oddly seductive animated Angelina Jolie, or will he give into his primal instincts....not a hard one to figure out. I'm not going to go too deep into the plot, simply because I don't want to spoil anything.The movie is split into two separate times, one a bit earlier than the other. The first half of the film was really enjoyable. I liked the characters I was being introduced to, the action was fun to watch, if not just to show off how much money they spent to make it look this good. The dialog was mildly amusing too. The second half was boring and predictable and led the movie nowhere. Where in the commercials it looks like this movie has nonstop action in many sets...it doesn't. The movie is mostly localized inside the King's mead hall, where much of the action and all of the drinking takes place. It was good that it took place in one area almost the entire movie because it gave the audience an intimate feel with the area, but it also never let us see what beautiful 3D CGI world that could have been created. The animation was lush and detailed, but that didn't make up for lack of story."Beowulf" could have been a grand and heroic tale, but instead was merely interesting animation, well choreographed action scenes, and a whole lot of nothing.My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****. 106 mins. PG-13 for animated nudity and violence.

Beowulf: A great animated movie!

tt0442933

I must say that it made a long time that an animated movie has had me captivated that much. In fact, it made a long time I had SEEN an animated movie. However, Beowulf had me really captivated. I must say that I admire Robert Zemeckis' work on this movie. The animated characters looked so real that I was thinking about real actors at some parts of the film. Though many characters(like Angelina Jolie's and Anthony Hopkins') were a bit unrealistic, however, their faces were actually recognizable. The battle scenes are kind of like in 300. My only negative point is that there is a few long scenes that last 20 minutes instead of 10(which would have been perfect).Beowulf is a great movie with a lot of great animation. If you are searching for an action movie, then you won't be disappointed with Beowulf. However, don't bring the kids along!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-128

ur14519807

title: Beowulf: A great animated movie! review: I must say that it made a long time that an animated movie has had me captivated that much. In fact, it made a long time I had SEEN an animated movie. However, Beowulf had me really captivated. I must say that I admire Robert Zemeckis' work on this movie. The animated characters looked so real that I was thinking about real actors at some parts of the film. Though many characters(like Angelina Jolie's and Anthony Hopkins') were a bit unrealistic, however, their faces were actually recognizable. The battle scenes are kind of like in 300. My only negative point is that there is a few long scenes that last 20 minutes instead of 10(which would have been perfect).Beowulf is a great movie with a lot of great animation. If you are searching for an action movie, then you won't be disappointed with Beowulf. However, don't bring the kids along!!

As frustrating as its visual predecessor, "300"...

tt0442933

...Robert "Contact" Zemeckis' "Beowulf" is a visually sumptuous film (which, at $150mil cost, it ought to be!) that unfortunately thoroughly betrays its source material. Not that that kept me from being entertained, understand, but I was still taken aback by such extreme revisionism. Other posters here have detailed the butchery, so I won't bother, but it's a shame that talented scripters like Neil "Stardust" Gaiman and Roger "Killing Zoe" Avary took a decade to deliver such a puerile, exploitative script. If they'd stuck to the real deal, I'd be willing to bet the film would have done better at the box office, but what do I know? The voice work is mostly impeccable, though I noticed a few instances in which the dialog didn't seem to match the animation. "Beowulf" sports plenty of star wattage: Ray "The Departed" Winstone, Anthony "you have to ask?" Hopkins, John "ditto" Malkovich, Crispin "Willard" Glover, the remarkable Brendan "28 Days Later..." Gleeson, Robin Wright "Empire Falls" Penn (who regrettably looks the least like her animated self), and the ever provocative Angelina "Gia" Jolie; all acquit themselves well, but fail to transcend the material, with the possible exception of Gleeson. As they say, it's tough to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.The problem lies partly with the otherwise stunning visuals provided by Gentle "Fight Club" Giant Studios, Sony Pictures "The Polar Express" Imageworks, and W.M. "Van Helsing" Creations. The rendering of the human characters fails to instill them with any real life, particularly in the eyes, and leaves one feeling that one is watching an elaborate computer game. The result is that it's very difficult to establish any real identification with the characters, a fate that "300" suffered as well. More's the pity, since everything else is such a feast. It's all wonderful eye candy, thanks to Norman "War of the Worlds" Newberry's lush art direction and Doug "The Polar Express" Chiang's superb production design, but it all seems ultimately empty and forgettable. The lensing by Robert "The Polar Express" Presley swoops and soars, and must be extremely impressive when viewed in the intended 3-D format (even in 2-D, it's pretty daggone nice), while Jeremiah "The Polar Express" O'Driscoll's editing is clean and concise. Alan "Night at the Museum" Silvestri's score is evocative and not overly manipulative.For empty-calorie viewing, "Beowulf" succeeds nicely. For devotees of the original epic poem/legend, the film fails in a big way; students of the literature will find nothing of interest here. Watch-once film-making as far as I'm concerned, though should I ever get the chance to watch it in 3-D, I may bite.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-449

ur0431565

title: As frustrating as its visual predecessor, "300"... review: ...Robert "Contact" Zemeckis' "Beowulf" is a visually sumptuous film (which, at $150mil cost, it ought to be!) that unfortunately thoroughly betrays its source material. Not that that kept me from being entertained, understand, but I was still taken aback by such extreme revisionism. Other posters here have detailed the butchery, so I won't bother, but it's a shame that talented scripters like Neil "Stardust" Gaiman and Roger "Killing Zoe" Avary took a decade to deliver such a puerile, exploitative script. If they'd stuck to the real deal, I'd be willing to bet the film would have done better at the box office, but what do I know? The voice work is mostly impeccable, though I noticed a few instances in which the dialog didn't seem to match the animation. "Beowulf" sports plenty of star wattage: Ray "The Departed" Winstone, Anthony "you have to ask?" Hopkins, John "ditto" Malkovich, Crispin "Willard" Glover, the remarkable Brendan "28 Days Later..." Gleeson, Robin Wright "Empire Falls" Penn (who regrettably looks the least like her animated self), and the ever provocative Angelina "Gia" Jolie; all acquit themselves well, but fail to transcend the material, with the possible exception of Gleeson. As they say, it's tough to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.The problem lies partly with the otherwise stunning visuals provided by Gentle "Fight Club" Giant Studios, Sony Pictures "The Polar Express" Imageworks, and W.M. "Van Helsing" Creations. The rendering of the human characters fails to instill them with any real life, particularly in the eyes, and leaves one feeling that one is watching an elaborate computer game. The result is that it's very difficult to establish any real identification with the characters, a fate that "300" suffered as well. More's the pity, since everything else is such a feast. It's all wonderful eye candy, thanks to Norman "War of the Worlds" Newberry's lush art direction and Doug "The Polar Express" Chiang's superb production design, but it all seems ultimately empty and forgettable. The lensing by Robert "The Polar Express" Presley swoops and soars, and must be extremely impressive when viewed in the intended 3-D format (even in 2-D, it's pretty daggone nice), while Jeremiah "The Polar Express" O'Driscoll's editing is clean and concise. Alan "Night at the Museum" Silvestri's score is evocative and not overly manipulative.For empty-calorie viewing, "Beowulf" succeeds nicely. For devotees of the original epic poem/legend, the film fails in a big way; students of the literature will find nothing of interest here. Watch-once film-making as far as I'm concerned, though should I ever get the chance to watch it in 3-D, I may bite.

A Hybrid of Live Action And Animation. But Is It For You?

tt0442933

A $150 million budget. A realistic Healthow voiced by Robin Wright Penn. An even more realistic Hrothgar voiced by Anthony Hopkins (BOBBY). John Malkovich (BURN AFTER READING) as Unferth. Ray Winstone (THE DEPARTED) as the dominating Beowulf. And the sexiest woman alive, Angelina Jolie (WANTED) as Grendel's deceptive mother. I mean, what a cast! This is what great films are made of. And the realism of the computer animation in terms of how they resembled the actual actors was astonishing ...which begged a pretty big question: WHY NOT SIMPLY FILM BEOWULF WITH LIVE ACTION AND NOT ANIMATION?! Cost was probably an issue, but with the $150 million budget I think they could've done a fine live action film. In 2005 Icelandic director Sturla Gunnarson proved it could be done with his very nicely done BEOWULF & GRENDEL starring Gerard Butler (300). With comparable run times (103 minutes to 114 minutes) and Beowulf & Grendel's much lower budget (I believe it was around $75 million), it can be done and done well if you have the inclination. But, for whatever reason, director Robert Zemeckis (MONSTER HOUSE) decided to shoot it this way.It may sound as if I'm bashing animated films in general, which I'm not. There are some really great ones out there (FINDING NEMO, HOODWINKED, etc.), so animation can be pulled off if care is taken to present it as such. But with Beowulf, it seems they were trying to mix live action with animation in order to produce some sort of hybrid ...which simply didn't work for me. It might for some and that's fine, but, if you're going to show realistic characters that look like the actual actors, why not simply do live action? It's so maddening! It was nice, however, to see some care taken with the source material (namely Neil Gaiman's reimagining of the epic poem by the same name). Beowulf had some shady dealings and it was refreshing to see this brought out in the story and not simply showing him as some flawless hero.Still, if you're into animation, this one might not work for you. Or if you're solely a live action fan, this one might REALLY bug you. So beware. You've been warned.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-464

ur7704831

title: A Hybrid of Live Action And Animation. But Is It For You? review: A $150 million budget. A realistic Healthow voiced by Robin Wright Penn. An even more realistic Hrothgar voiced by Anthony Hopkins (BOBBY). John Malkovich (BURN AFTER READING) as Unferth. Ray Winstone (THE DEPARTED) as the dominating Beowulf. And the sexiest woman alive, Angelina Jolie (WANTED) as Grendel's deceptive mother. I mean, what a cast! This is what great films are made of. And the realism of the computer animation in terms of how they resembled the actual actors was astonishing ...which begged a pretty big question: WHY NOT SIMPLY FILM BEOWULF WITH LIVE ACTION AND NOT ANIMATION?! Cost was probably an issue, but with the $150 million budget I think they could've done a fine live action film. In 2005 Icelandic director Sturla Gunnarson proved it could be done with his very nicely done BEOWULF & GRENDEL starring Gerard Butler (300). With comparable run times (103 minutes to 114 minutes) and Beowulf & Grendel's much lower budget (I believe it was around $75 million), it can be done and done well if you have the inclination. But, for whatever reason, director Robert Zemeckis (MONSTER HOUSE) decided to shoot it this way.It may sound as if I'm bashing animated films in general, which I'm not. There are some really great ones out there (FINDING NEMO, HOODWINKED, etc.), so animation can be pulled off if care is taken to present it as such. But with Beowulf, it seems they were trying to mix live action with animation in order to produce some sort of hybrid ...which simply didn't work for me. It might for some and that's fine, but, if you're going to show realistic characters that look like the actual actors, why not simply do live action? It's so maddening! It was nice, however, to see some care taken with the source material (namely Neil Gaiman's reimagining of the epic poem by the same name). Beowulf had some shady dealings and it was refreshing to see this brought out in the story and not simply showing him as some flawless hero.Still, if you're into animation, this one might not work for you. Or if you're solely a live action fan, this one might REALLY bug you. So beware. You've been warned.

It's all about the sensory overload

tt0442933

The success of "300" and "Apocalypto" no doubt have set the stage for violent setpieces set during ancient history, where visual resplendence that cater to testosterone-bearing members of the audience are preferred to a richer narrative. The latest in line is Robert Zemeckis' "Beowulf".Ray Wintstone plays the eponymous character, who travels the high seas to answer the call of the drunk King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins): to slay the demon Grendel (Crispin Glover), who has been terrorizing the town of Heorot. Beowulf does so but incurs the wrath of the demon's mother (Angelina Jolie), who in turns seduces him into a curse that befell generations of leaders.Written for the screen by fantasy novel/comic book whiz Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary ("Pulp Fiction"), the film employs the same motion-capture 3-D animation he used in "Polar Express". Consequently, this retelling of an Old English epic is no doubt a sensory overload. The renderings are photorealistic, and the fight scenes are exhilarating. But at the course of its length, it all becomes tiresome with its source's themes relegated to the backseat in order for Zemeckis to suit it to modern viewers.The same can be said of Zack Snyder's and Mel Gibson's previously mentioned works; but whereas those films managed to keep the viewer engaged through its action scenes, "Beowulf" doesn't. And in all its visual splendor, "Beowulf" also lacks stronger characters that would elevate it to the level of the film's technical breakthroughs. It's at once exhilarating yet exhausting.The climactic battle scene (which in itself is an incentive to see the movie in IMAX) punctuates a two-hour exposition that lacks a thematic depth. It's not unlike one of those extended cutscenes in RPGs that seem to go on forever and ever, making you wonder when gameplay would start again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-21

ur6447592

title: It's all about the sensory overload review: The success of "300" and "Apocalypto" no doubt have set the stage for violent setpieces set during ancient history, where visual resplendence that cater to testosterone-bearing members of the audience are preferred to a richer narrative. The latest in line is Robert Zemeckis' "Beowulf".Ray Wintstone plays the eponymous character, who travels the high seas to answer the call of the drunk King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins): to slay the demon Grendel (Crispin Glover), who has been terrorizing the town of Heorot. Beowulf does so but incurs the wrath of the demon's mother (Angelina Jolie), who in turns seduces him into a curse that befell generations of leaders.Written for the screen by fantasy novel/comic book whiz Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary ("Pulp Fiction"), the film employs the same motion-capture 3-D animation he used in "Polar Express". Consequently, this retelling of an Old English epic is no doubt a sensory overload. The renderings are photorealistic, and the fight scenes are exhilarating. But at the course of its length, it all becomes tiresome with its source's themes relegated to the backseat in order for Zemeckis to suit it to modern viewers.The same can be said of Zack Snyder's and Mel Gibson's previously mentioned works; but whereas those films managed to keep the viewer engaged through its action scenes, "Beowulf" doesn't. And in all its visual splendor, "Beowulf" also lacks stronger characters that would elevate it to the level of the film's technical breakthroughs. It's at once exhilarating yet exhausting.The climactic battle scene (which in itself is an incentive to see the movie in IMAX) punctuates a two-hour exposition that lacks a thematic depth. It's not unlike one of those extended cutscenes in RPGs that seem to go on forever and ever, making you wonder when gameplay would start again.

Chasing the Dragon

tt0442933

*The following is a review of the digital 3D version showing at select theaters: Robert Zemeckis has always been a trailblazer with film technology. He was among the first to utilize CGI in "Death Becomes Her" and with his adaptation of the oldest surviving epic poem in the English language, he perfects the life-like digital computer animation he first experimented with in "The Polar Express". Like his canon of films over the years, "Beowulf" is an eye-popping mixed bag of cinematic tricks.The animation has come to a point where it is eerily life-like. In "Beowulf" every blade of grass, every tree branch, and every strand of hair has been painstakingly detailed. And while it is hard to tell the difference between the digital Angelina Jolie and the real Angelina Jolie, there's still something about the human face, the nuances of the muscular features, the emotion running beneath, that this technology will never capture. It still depicts hollow, cold clones of real human beings that could never fully replace 3D flesh and blood.What makes "Beowulf" so entertaining is the digital 3D technology. It creates some breathtaking vistas where you feel as if the landscapes are moving through you. In some of the more horrific scenes with Grendel, you'll find yourself jumping out of your skin. Zemeckis is like a magician with this technology. He's able to bleed something out of nothing by knowing how to get the reactions he wants from his audience with just the right sound effect, camera angle, and quick-cut to complete his trick. It's often ugly, but quite breathtaking.Zemeckis loses some ground when he relies too much on juvenile machismo grandstanding to further character development. Sure, I love a good death by chandelier scene or a man getting ripped in half by a monster bit as much as the next guy, but all the bawdy humor wears thin. Even lamer was the scene where Beowulf fights Grendel in the buff, which contained almost as many laugh inducing sight gags as the scene where Bart skateboarded nude through Springfield in this summer's "The Simpsons Movie." The mixed bag of tricks and sometimes slow build-up, however, eventually lead to a totally thrilling finale where Beowulf does battle with the dragon his misdeeds begot. In 3D, it's nerve-shattering fun. As an action adventure film, it makes the mark.Ultimately you realize why this story has survived over 1200 years. "Beowulf" makes legendary the idea of a hero's fallibility and the global consequences of the sins of the father. These are universal themes that have been sung again and again in everything from Shakespeare to this year's best film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." While the technology used to make this film may seem dated in a few years, the story will live on, and this just may be the definitive "Beowulf" for high school English teachers to use in their lame attempts to connect with their students. The savvier kids won't be fooled, but there's worse ways to pass the time in class.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/reviews-110

ur1069062

title: Chasing the Dragon review: *The following is a review of the digital 3D version showing at select theaters: Robert Zemeckis has always been a trailblazer with film technology. He was among the first to utilize CGI in "Death Becomes Her" and with his adaptation of the oldest surviving epic poem in the English language, he perfects the life-like digital computer animation he first experimented with in "The Polar Express". Like his canon of films over the years, "Beowulf" is an eye-popping mixed bag of cinematic tricks.The animation has come to a point where it is eerily life-like. In "Beowulf" every blade of grass, every tree branch, and every strand of hair has been painstakingly detailed. And while it is hard to tell the difference between the digital Angelina Jolie and the real Angelina Jolie, there's still something about the human face, the nuances of the muscular features, the emotion running beneath, that this technology will never capture. It still depicts hollow, cold clones of real human beings that could never fully replace 3D flesh and blood.What makes "Beowulf" so entertaining is the digital 3D technology. It creates some breathtaking vistas where you feel as if the landscapes are moving through you. In some of the more horrific scenes with Grendel, you'll find yourself jumping out of your skin. Zemeckis is like a magician with this technology. He's able to bleed something out of nothing by knowing how to get the reactions he wants from his audience with just the right sound effect, camera angle, and quick-cut to complete his trick. It's often ugly, but quite breathtaking.Zemeckis loses some ground when he relies too much on juvenile machismo grandstanding to further character development. Sure, I love a good death by chandelier scene or a man getting ripped in half by a monster bit as much as the next guy, but all the bawdy humor wears thin. Even lamer was the scene where Beowulf fights Grendel in the buff, which contained almost as many laugh inducing sight gags as the scene where Bart skateboarded nude through Springfield in this summer's "The Simpsons Movie." The mixed bag of tricks and sometimes slow build-up, however, eventually lead to a totally thrilling finale where Beowulf does battle with the dragon his misdeeds begot. In 3D, it's nerve-shattering fun. As an action adventure film, it makes the mark.Ultimately you realize why this story has survived over 1200 years. "Beowulf" makes legendary the idea of a hero's fallibility and the global consequences of the sins of the father. These are universal themes that have been sung again and again in everything from Shakespeare to this year's best film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." While the technology used to make this film may seem dated in a few years, the story will live on, and this just may be the definitive "Beowulf" for high school English teachers to use in their lame attempts to connect with their students. The savvier kids won't be fooled, but there's worse ways to pass the time in class.