|
Forwardcharm |
 |
Latest News 25 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 27 / 06 / 2010 13 / 06 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 19 / 04 / 2010 18 / 04 / 2010 06 / 04 / 2010 05 / 04 / 2010 03 / 04 / 2010 29 / 03 / 2010 14 / 03 / 2010 09 / 03 / 2010 08 / 03 / 2010 17 / 02 / 2010 16 / 02 / 2010 31 / 01 / 2010 25 / 10 / 2009 02 / 08 / 2009 18 / 08 / 2005 |
Beowulf
If Beowulf were a cartoon, it'd be a whole lot easier to recommend. As it is, I'm struggling.
Beowulf is an interesting diversion but not that great a movie. As it's all about the aesthetics, it rather defeats the object viewing it in dull old flat-screen, so catch it in 3D if you can. Or download it. I enjoyed this film: I think the average moviegoer will enjoy it: Testosterone Satisfaction Rating: - Angelina Jolie naked in shiny CGI and sporting a tail is still enough to make you glad you're not watching with your parents. Ray Winstone flashes his pretend arse around a few times, however his tackle is hidden Austin Powers style, which is just as well for its rating here. The fast paced fight scenes boost its score too. To enjoy this film you should: find somewhere to see it in 3D.
|
||
The problem is its own unique selling point: the motion-capture animation. Whilst this is superb for demons and other
fanciful creatures, it's hopeless at human faces. Like The Polar Express before it, every human looks detached and
zombified, as if the eyes are drawn on their closed eyelids. This is a huge drawback, as it whacks you in the face every
time the camera closes in on someone - which is a lot. The camera also does some rather peculiar movements, such as
focussing on the wobbly tip of a nasty looking pikestaff while looking down its length. Why would they do that, I
thought as it distracted me from the dialogue. Are they showing us how they can focus all the way from tip to wielder,
unhampered by those pesky physical limitations most directors have to deal with? Well no, as it turns out. The reason we
had a pike shoved up our noses is because the movie's supposed to be shown in 3D, with one of those funny sets of
glasses. Now I didn't know that, and if I had I'm not sure I would've been so comfortable shelling out for a boggo 2D
ticket when the full experience requires a whole extra D.
But that's another argument - you're here to find out if Beowulf is any good, and the answer to that is yes and no.
There is a peculiar dichotomy in the apparent target audience - one moment we're enjoying swearing, vicious violence and
other adult themes,
the next we're enduring action sequences so barmy that they'd fit perfectly in Sunday morning cartoons. Is the movie
aimed at children or adults? I honestly can't tell you. But to be honest, no-one's going to be talking about the plot,
as the animation is the only memorable feature. As we've covered, the human faces look like Tussauds exiles, but putting
that aside there are some stunning sequences. The mythical beasties are breathtaking and the minor movements -
the slightest shift in stance or gesture - are spookily perfect. The characters are all recognisable as the actors -
with the notable exception of Ray Winstone as the flowing-locked titular hero - and when demon Angelina Jolie wades out
of the lake bollock naked and the camera lingers where you'd want it to, well let's just say I was convinced. But then
that's probably because I wasn't looking at her face...
The final issue I have also applies to many more traditional animations, and that regards the gravity. Whenever anything
runs or jumps, the movement looks wrong because the flying part returns to the ground too soon, as if they've programmed
the force of gravity too high in their physics model. I've been banging on about this for a number of years now and it's
not getting any better, quite the opposite in fact.
Now before I let you back to your heroic lives I shall make one somewhat ironic observation. During the usual
desperate half hour of ads that infect our consciousness before we're allowed to watch the movie,
we're piously reminded that we only get the full movie experience in a cinema rather than
downloading a hooky copy from cyberspace. Apart from the obvious point that we've clearly already queued up and bought
the ticket, apart from the fact that hooky web copies don't have half an hour of brain-numbing commercials to endure,
apart from the fact that we're NOT getting the full movie experience because our crappy local cinema doesn't do 3D,
apart from the fact that I can have a banquet at home for the price of a cinema peanut, apart from the fact that my
living room doesn't have four failed medical experiments behind me making "hilarious" comments during the movie,
apart from all that .... (breathe) .... this particular movie would be BETTER in slightly lower quality because the
dead-eye problem would be drastically reduced. Remind me again why I paid seven quid and drove twenty miles for this...?
