Beowulf: CGI to the max

In his later years, Paul Newman talked about the frightening possibilities of CGI and how it may replace human actors one day. His primary concern was that someone could replicate how he looked and how he sounded and essentially copy him. Most of these talks took place in 2006 when he did voice work for Cars and year later came Beowulf. Using the same techniques utilized in Polar Express director Robert Zemeckis decided to delve into more adult material and make his own spin on the epic poem. So now many questions pop up. How faithful is the movie to the source material? How does it look? Is it entertaining? Is this technique the wave of the future?

But before we can answer questions we have to get to what the movie is all about except swords and monsters. So we're in Denmark way back when and King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) and his citizens are having drunken debauchery and celebrating their new mead hall. Sadly the party is cut short when a hideous looking beast named Grendel played by Crispin Glover (who seriously looks like an Ent from LOTR) is pained by the party's noise, goes crazy and starts killing and eating the guests leaving the king strangely unharmed. Realizing that something must be done the king prays for a hero that arrives in the form of Beowulf (Ray Winstone) and his army led by Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson). But something more sinister lies beneath the surface with Grendel's mother a dragon that can take human form (Angelina Jolie).

First things first how faithful is the movie the original work. Actually it varies to a significant degree. Rather than simply being our full out hero Beowulf is portrayed as being quite flawed and potentially untruthful about the monsters he has slain. The same three part structure of the story is intact but the gigantic underwater fight between Beowulf and Grendel's mother does not exist. In addition, there's this weird element of adding Christianity to the mix. So if you're looking for wonderfully faithful adaptation you'd better skip this one.

And now our second question, how does it look? To avoid sounding like a really excited ten year old I will simply say that the CGI is incredibly impressive. However, luckily for us it is also obvious that the characters are not real so we can recognize Angelina's Jolie's face and voice but we're not confused into thinking she's really on-screen. It looks like the creators realized that delving into the uncanny valley was not the best of ideas for such an expensive project. There are other things that I found very impressive such as how the water looked throughout the entire movie and the fire effect towards the end of the film.

The third and probably most important question, is it entertaining? For the most part yes. The action sequences are riveting and are crisp enough that the audience is never trying to pick out what is going on. In addition the voice acting is very well done and everyone is cast perfectly especially the underrated Ray Winstone as the lead. The movie also manages to put together a three part poem into one story without feeling like three movies. Personally I also liked that they treated the old Danish warriors as they were, brutish, dirty, driven by lust and obsessed with violence.

That being said there are some things that I can complain about (Lucky Me!). First I don't know if it is different in the rated version of the movie but in the unrated version that I own Beowulf spends a good portion of his time on-screen in the nude. Which is fine. I've got nothing against it but they start doing the Austin Powers thing where they keep putting something suggestive in front of his stuff. Some humorous examples include a sword, a gigantic candle, a piece of wood, and the all too convenient friend stepping in front of the camera at just the right moment.

Also while I understand why the screen-writers took out the fight between Grendel's mother and Beowulf in place of something that would develop the character more I couldn't help but feel jipped that there were only two major monster fights. In addition the violence sometimes has an overly brutal aspect to it and makes me wonder why I needed to see a man's body used like a Capri-Sun. My other complaints are pretty standard and include: slow spots when the action dies down, unnecessary scenes that add nothing except possibly modest amusement, and there are points where I begin to wonder if I even like the main character.

It has its ups and downs but the sheer impressiveness of the project is enough to keep you glued to your seat for at least one viewing. Oh and be ready for bloodiness if you get the unrated version because this is most certainly not a kids movie.

Final question. Is this the wave of the future. If I were James Cameron and praying that Avatar is as big or bigger than Titanic even though it looks like the same plot as the unknown movie Battle For Terrra thus making me unoriginal I would say yes. However as a movie lover I can admit that while it has its advantages it shouldn't replace anything. Our first pro is that actors who may not have the build or looks for a standard action hero can be just that. No offense to Ray Winstone but there's a reason he's usually a supporting character in a film he's a big hairy guy that acts really well. But thanks to CGI our Beowulf is blond and buff. The improvement in CGI also makes it easier to trick the audience and give us believable action sequences. I don't even want to imagine and Iron Man movie that was done without CGI.

But with such great movie powers come problems too. For instance, there will always be a point where it becomes obvious that it's CGI because real metal or real fire doesn't look like that. The uncanny valley has also already been mentioned but the basic jist of it is that the more human non-human things become the creepier they become in our minds. Aka if a robot looks and acts like a person and maybe even believes it is a person we will fear it greatly. More than anything else this style of movie can only be a once in awhile thing due to one the major reasons people see movies. They want the impossible to seem possible. You don't go home from Star Wars and talk about how sweet the effects were. You starting wishing you had a light saber and could change people's minds with a swing of the hand. It lets our nerdiest fantasies run wild and let's us watch someone who looks like we do (or how we want to look) live out our wildest hopes and dreams. Not to mention I need to believe there's a chance I can be James Bond in this lifetime and if he gets replaced by CGI I won't believe that I am capable of it anymore.