Beowulf (2007)

I avoided this movie like the plague because of all the horrendous reviews from media and from friends. I was curious to see if they were right. Occasionally, I find myself loving something that no one else I know likes (ahem…Waterworld…). I read Beowulf at some point when I was a teenager because I read anything I could get my hands on, all the time. Not enough of it stuck with me over the years for me to make a good comparison between the poem and the film but the feeling of the poem returned to me as I watched the movie.
The historical significance of the Beowulf epic is that it was long considered one of the oldest surviving texts of what is recognizable as an English language. While this is debated heatedly in some circles, the fact remains that the anonymous poem is very old, potentially from 800A.D. Here you can read a translation of it that appears to be a much better translation than the one that I read as a teenager that was very close to the original text. The bard who wrote the poem composed over 3000 lines to the hero, describing rituals, clothing, journeys, and battles.

The movie tells of how Beowulf goes to the aid of a troubled kingdom. He effortlessly puts down a creature that has been plaguing the area for several years. He is rewarded handsomely and prepares to return home with his fellow adventurers. But that is not the end of Denmark’s problems.

Never mess with a mother’s son. You can take that to heart and ask several local school employees if I’m kidding. Every little unruly monster has a mother, and that one did. And was she pissed!

Once again Beowulf is dispatched, this time with the reward of the crown and the Queen if he succeeds. And he is successful…well…he gets lucky so to speak. And all’s right with the world for years to come, until Beowulf is old and gray and the Queen he once so coveted is replaced by a little captive teenager who resembles the Queen in her younger days.

But his past comes back to haunt him, as it did for the King before him.

Beowulf, once a hero, now a deadbeat dad, an adulterer, and a man who has not lifted a sword in more than a decade, must struggle to step into the shoes of the hero once again.

Favorite Scene: When Grendel is laid to rest by his mother in the first part of the movie. I loathe Angelina Jolie on many levels, and the scene had more to do with the directing and the talent of the image generators, but I was actually in tears along with her.

The screenplay was written by Roger Avary (The Rules of Attraction, Silent Hill) and Neil Gaiman. Robert Zemeckis directed and Alan Silvestri’s score was beautiful.

The acting was beautiful, especially considering they were interacting with fluorescent colored plastic items of similar size and weight to the real thing and were wearing outfits similar to skydiving suits. Anthony Hopkins played Hrothgar, the king of Denmark who relinquishes his thrown to Beowulf. Wealthow, the Queen, is played by Robin Wright-Penn. John Malkovich plays Ureth, a very John Malkovich type character. Beowulf is played by the very busy Ray Winstone. Interesting tidbit, Ray was a very successful amateur boxer before starting his acting career. Alison Lohman plays Ursula, Beowulf’s mistress, and Angelina Jolie plays Grendel’s mother.

The movie is entirely CGI and the special features on the disc show how everything is simulated so that the actors can behave naturally enough that sometimes when you watch the finished product it’s hard to tell that it isn’t real. For example, for the feasting scene a metal egg beater with stuff stuck into it was used so that the actor could hold the beater, the size and weight of a large turkey leg, and bite down, ripping with his teeth. The room was even darkened like a cave as the actors did the motion capture for the cave scenes to give them a sense of being in a dark, confined space.

Crispin Glover, who plays Grendel, even speaks in Old English, giving Grendel a very authentic feel.

I think that people not expecting a fully CGI movie, or those unfamiliar with CGI and animation in more adult-oriented features, might have been the biggest opposition. Being a fan of anime for at least two decades, I loved it instantly. The story was typical adventure/redemption (which I’m a sucker for). It has everything: love triangles galore, sensuality, dragonslaying, intrigue, lost love, and dark secrets. The CGI gives it the epic fantasy/fairy tale feel that the story itself deserves.
I was not of the opinion that the CGI took anything away from the movie. With the writer/director team and the brilliant cast, I don’t see how it could be so hated as it seems to be, at least from those whom I hear from.
I wish people would watch the movie with an open mind and give it another chance. It was very fun and sucked me in from the start. I am a big fan of the idea of the performance capture Oscar category.

Hunchback of Notre Dame (TV, 1982) and Hallmark Hall of Fame series

I was watching this movie just as entertainment, not intending to write about it.  But I found myself very moved by Anthony Hopkins’ performance. And it gave me memories of the Hallmark Hall of Fame productions and what a big deal they were when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s.

Hallmark Hall of Fame began as live-taped programs including Shakespeare plays, in 1951 and may have been the longest running anthology series on television, running approximately 58 seasons. Shows like these were an important part of not only entertainment, but culture and literacy in rural parts of the country. With movies like The Winter of our Discontent, All Creatures Great and Small, and Anastasia, Hallmark Hall of Fame introduced areas without libraries and with only one or two available television channels to great works of literature and history that they may not have otherwise even heard of. A complete list of the Hallmark Hall of Fame movies can be found here.

Victor Hugo, who is beyond compare when it comes to detailing the grimy, destitution of the human condition, wrote a much darker story than Hallmark chose to put to film, though.  John Gay did the teleplay for this version, and if you’re at all familiar with made for TV movies back when they were good, he did nearly all of them. The popular Dial M for Murder (1981) and the absolute best versions of both Les Miserables (1978, TV) and A Tale of Two Cities (TV, 1980) were just a few of them. He also wrote screenplays, including The Courtship of Eddie’s Father (1963), Mutiny on the Bounty (1962), and No Way to Treat a Lady (1968). Michael Tuchner, who also worked mainly with TV, directed.

Anthony Hopkins is the main reason to watch this movie. He plays Quasimodo and is brilliant. It’s so hard to tell that it is even him. The way he moves, holds his mouth, even his speech pattern is perfect. I found this a very different and moving role for him. Derek Jacobi is fairly good as the Archdeacon. Leslie-Anne Down, who plays Esmerelda, is very pretty, but her acting falls flat. She also cannot dance and it is painfully obvious when she is supposed to be dancing in the street for money. John Gielgud, Nigel Hawthorne, and Robert Powell all give the movie atmosphere and depth in smaller rolls.

Archdeacon of Nottingham, Claude Frollo, falls inexplicably in love with a young Egyptian woman caught dancing for money in the streets of Paris. He lets her go rather than sending her to the Bastille, and is haunted by her from that moment forth. Consumed by a passion he can only explain as bewitching, the Archdeacon continues to pursue Esmerelda despite her putting him off and despite her marriage- of-convenience to a penniless poet. The Archdeacon decides to handle the problem of Esmerelda by sending out his deformed ward, Quasimodo, to bring her to him. When Quasimodo is captured for kidnapping the girl and assaulting a Captain of the royal archers, the Archdeacon does not go to his rescue, letting him be flogged and left for public ridicule in the courtyard.

In an act of selfless kindness, Esmerelda approaches the bound Quasidmodo and offers him water when no one else dared, creating yet another admirer for herself.

Unable to put aside his physical need for the gypsy woman, the Archdeacon chooses to hand her over as a witch.

This movie is all about the set. It could have been made on any Renaissance Faire site throughout the world, with faire participants as extras, but that is what made it feel so authentic. What better place to find medieval/renaissance authenticity Nazis than at Renaissance Faires and SCA groups.

The movie lacks the tension and horror of the earliest versions of the film from the ‘30s and 40s, and is played more as a romance, but the real focal point is the small sections of set that make the movie stand out among other made-for-TV nonsense. Effort was made in costuming Paris of the period, although there was a little bit of reliance on the generic “medieval man” costume like you would find at costume shops.

The monks and the band of thieves seemed most authentic. The only downside to this was that Leslie-Anne Down stuck out to me like a sore thumb, proclaiming that she was a woman of the 80s. The hair bugged me a little on her, but mostly I think it was the makeup. I always applaud actresses who go for less-is-more in historical pieces where make-up is concerned. This was not one of those times. Every other woman in the movie looked like a woman. Leslie-Anne Down looked like a walking Mary Kay billboard. I don’t think I ever once saw her, only slashes of blush and lipstick walking down the street on a pair of legs.

I recommend this movie mostly for fans of Anthony Hopkins. It doesn’t bring much new to the story and while the other stars are all wonderful and the extras are perfection, it’s still a fairly typical romance.

~"That's not a wart, it's an egg! With the devil inside!" nun present at Quasimodo's birth~