Beowulf & Grendel (2005)

The Worst Film Ever

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I had no high expectations (my crap detector predicting a "meh" out of 10) but was still disappointed. Don't get me wrong: I like Gerald Butler, for reasons which escape me, but hey, if you can stomach King Leonidas sporting a red Speedo and a Scots accent, you can handle Beowulf. Amiright? No fan of 300, I was pleasantly surprised to see Gerry manage an entire hack-and-slash movie role without displaying a six pack or a male nipple. I wasn't surprised that he didn't manage a single syllable of dialogue without the Scots brogue. His portrayal of Beowulf could charitably be called "competent"; he didn't fudge his lines and he didn't drop his sword, but he could have been replaced by any of a hundred other actors. Oh yeah, he ran up the hills fairly well. Not that it counts. Zero points.I was very pleasantly surprised at possibly the best performance I've ever seen from Stellan Skarsgard. The man's an extremely accomplished actor, but watching him bring the conflicted, haunted, guilt-ridden, drunken sot King Hrothgar to life was a revelation. His was without doubt the best performance in the entire film, with one possible exception, of which more in a moment. Worth a solid two points alone.The only real competitor for best performance was from Eddie Marsdan. Eddie's one of those character actors, someone who will likely never hold a leading role in any movie you'll ever see, but whose character portrayals provide a great foil to the leading actor's performance. His lunatic Brother Brendan was highly amusing, at times inspired, and only betrayed by poor direction and cinematography. They should have used him more intelligently. One point there.Interesting to see Rory McCann in a role other than that of the Hound from Game of Thrones, but seeing him without GoT armour and prosthetics was the only interesting thing about his involvement in Beowulf & Grendel. His performance was flat, uninspired, completely forgettable. Zero points.The rest of the cast can be lumped together, except for a shout out to the actor whose spastic village idiot reveals the location of Grendel's cave. One of the better mentally handicapped performances I've seen recently. One point.The direction was lacklustre and dull, sometimes even tiresome. In some scenes it seemed like the actors had run out of things to do and were waiting for the director to remember to shout "Cut!" Many of the best moments - Grendel's first attack on the Danes for instance - were completely ballsed-up by bad direction, mediocre choreography and poor planning of shots, and then compounded by indifferent to awful cinematography. Those two elements together reduced potentially a great retelling of the epic story to the level of a low-budget TV movie made by the film industry rank-and-file. I'm tempted to deduct a point here, but let's face it, this film hasn't scored many yet, so I'll be nice and let them get away with an undeserved zero points.The soundtrack was nothing but dull orchestral elevator music. In many scenes there was no music at all to help us feel the emotional tone. At others times it was intrusive, and it was almost always completely inappropriate. This is inexcusable. There are extremely talented film composers working in Iceland today - Atli Örvarsson's soundtrack for The Eagle is a fantastic example of the work coming out of there. The Norwegian band Wardruna contributed a great deal of absolutely superb music to the Vikings TV series. They use authentic instruments and Nordic singing, and their albums are nothing less than haunting. It's a crying shame that we had to sit through the audio drivel we were served up in this case. Minus one point.The script was generally good and even at times very good, but it was badly compromised by modern syntax and grammar, modern colloquialisms and worst of all, modern Anglo-Saxon swearwords. The plot was decent enough in that it's fairly close to the original epic poem, but that wasn't so much a function of good scriptwriting as it was of good source material. One point for a nice effort.The props, sets and costumes were generally good, especially the weapons and helmets. The modern, shiny-finish leather used in some of the armour was a serious mistake, as was the use of some modern textiles. And the hairy muscle suits worn by the trolls looked ridiculous in every well-lit shot. Someone should have noticed that during production and tried to fix it. One point there, but only because I can't give half points on IMDb.One ludicrous moment was early in the film when Beowulf was introduced to us by swimming ashore in full armour, minus helmet, and wearing a sword in a sheath. The fact is that authentic Viking chainmail hauberks weighed something in the order of 10 or 15 kg - call it 25 to 30 lb if you think Imperial. Add another 3 kg - say 8 lb - for a medium sword, plus a few kilograms of assorted leather, and you're looking at probably 20 kg (50 lb) of weight he'd have to be carrying, not including shoes and other clothing. It doesn't matter how strong a swimmer he is, he'd just sink like a stone. The fact that the film industry uses aluminium and rubber in place of metal and leather armour specifically in order to reduce the weight worn by the actors is no excuse. None at all.So the grand total is a whopping five points, which I think is probably far too generous. To sum up, if you decide to watch Beowulf & Grendel, don't expect much and you're unlikely to be disappointed. If you want to see something special then don't bother wasting your money unless you're a fan of Stellan Skarsgard. Or you have a crush on Gerry that doesn't depend on well-chiselled abs and the briefest of red briefs.

Beowulf and Grendel (2005): Dir: Sturla Gunnarsson / Cast: Gerard Butler, Stellan Skarsgard, Sarah Polley, Ingnar Sigurdsson, Tony Curran: Technically well drawn film about conflict. Beowulf is summoned by a struggling King to slay a troll named Grendel. Film opens with the slaying of Grendel's father and the revenge sought. Structure is repetitious with Grendel attacking then Beowulf failing to end the feud. It doesn't end pleasant but its misplaced humour is distracting. Gerard Butler as Beowulf is pretty straight forward. He bests Grendel then he eventually kills Grendel before dealing with the wrath of his demented mother whom he will also kill. Stellan Skarsgard portrays the King who is paying for his past. Sarah Polley is terrific as a witch to whom Beowulf will seek answers from. Ingnar Sigurdsson plays off the vengeful spirit of Grendel. Director Sturla Gunnarsson keeps the tension high as villagers fear to shut their eyes in fear of waking under attack. He previously made a greater film called Such A Long Journey, another film about a lone figure attempting to knock down a wall of sorts. The special effects are not too overwhelming, which allows them to accompany the narrative as oppose to rule it. It delivers on its ancient sets and grotesque creatures without mocking the story. Theme regards hate and its everlasting plunge into death and despair. Score: 6 ½ / 10

The scenery is flabbergasting and awe-inspiring. Beautiful mountains and fjords, vertiginous seascape and landscape, little winter and snow. It is not a film about the cold north but the heroic pagan mystery of this northern climes. Pagan with some beings coming from we do not know where, though the troll is explained very clearly from the very start as being the son of a man who was killed in some atrocious way by some Danes, just because he was coming from somewhere else and he "stole" a fish. The son then escapes and survives in nature alone. He becomes a wild child that does not speak any human language and is only looking for his vengeance on the Danish chief who had his father killed and who spared the child's life out of some human feeling. Beowulf is the one who is going to get that "troll", and the story is very close to the English Beowulf, though they try once again to make things look natural, normal. It kills in many ways the meaning and the power of some symbols, and you will never know that Beowulf used a sword from the giants who were on earth before human beings, and that this sword is decorated with runes and interlacing runic tangles. The fact that he has to resort to this sword he finds in the hoard of the mother of this Grendel, some kind of unexplained amphibious monster, appears to be a simple accident, while it is an essential and meaningful element: these monsters are the descendants of the giants that dominated the world before human beings. Some future is told by a witch but she uses bones instead of using the famous runes. The most important addition to this film, as compared to the original story, is this witch who was more or less raped once by Grendel and who got a son from him. Does this element give any humanity to the tale? I do not think so. Does it emphasizes the pagan side of the tale? Maybe but we have to say the repetitive christenings are at least counterbalancing this pagan element. The last interesting side of the film is the realistic rendition of the habitat of these northern human beings and that is neither comfortable, nor in anyway clean or well-ordered. It sure is the story of humanity emerging out of old phases of animal or pre-human existence, but this emergence is identified too much with the Christianization of Scandinavia. In one word is a good film of action though it is rather naïve as for the real anthropological or even archaeological dimension of the story, and it is rather too far from the Anglo-Saxon poem to be considered as a fair adaptation of the first part of this poem. We are missing the dragon of the second part and the death of the hero.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

Warning: spoilers ahead.Grendel was not a mumbling retard. He had no father. Beowulf did not have doubts. Grendels mother was a monster, killed by Beowulf.Besides, there was no "witch" in the poem. Yet here she is, being the clever one, telling everyone what is right and wrong.And where did that monk come from? And how come early Christians are always portrayed as frothing lunatics and hypocrites? This movie was NOT Beowulf, this was just another stinking pile of Hollywood revisionist relativist dung.Hey Hollywood, when you a-holes are done throwing crap at one of the oldest and most important works in Anglo-Saxon literature, let us know. We would like to see a movie that was actually based on the poem. I won't hold my breath though.1 star because there's no 0-star option.