Since John Gardner's book Grendel fifty years ago, retellings of the story of Beowulf have enjoyed a certain postmodern freedom from the rigidity of the original Anglo-Saxon verse. If Grendel be more man than monster, can the burly hero still boast about his destruction? Would he still want to? Removing the mystique from Grendel (and his people) calls into question the monster's motives, desires, and even rights. If you guard your fairy tales with religious zeal, if you prefer your monsters black-hearted, your heroes righteous as the dawn, then by gods skip Sturla Gunnarsson's recent entry into this dialogue. If you are instead a student of realism, and the possibility of all actions being unjustifiable, of all decisions being the wrong decision, tickles your inner materialist, then you are sure to be rewarded.There is so much talk of Beowulf & Grendel's realistic properties, that one aspect must first be overcome. There is no point where this universe of Danes, Geats, and monsters is intended to be our own. Grendel's people, whose depiction in the film belies the creators' mid-production waffling between a race of yeti or relict Neanderthal, are not human, but humanoid. That is all that it is necessary that they be. Likewise the Danes call them trolls, but there is no intention to conjure up images from Asbjørnsen and Moe. It appears they settled on a strange dimorphism, where the females of the tribe are trunk-legged water-dwellers, and the men three meter-tall land ramblers. This is all, as they say, academic; however, I wonder whether it, along with bizarre calligraphic chapter cards at uneven internals, is evidence of an attempt to shoehorn fairy tale properties for a wider audience.What is realistic is instead the writing, and the limitations and expectations of these brutal, Dark Age characters. These people are frank, superstitious, crude, and violent, but the main achievement is in making them also uncaricatured. They are intelligent but not wise, brave, but not invulnerable. "I p--s the stuff, you know" says Hrothgar (Skarsgård) under-voice to Beowulf (Butler) as the two comment on an increasingly atypical blood-free morning. I'm especially fond of an early scene where Beowulf washes up ashore in Geatland and casually brushes off the minor adventure to a peasant fisherman. "Oh, a hero! Well, don't my s--t stink!" says the peasant. It typifies the period so perfectly - this is 500 CE, long before castles, courts, and chivalry, before class or nationalism. Survival was all, in harsh lands where kings commanded fewer men than a high school basketball coach. For these tribesmen the gods couldn't do what kinship sometimes could, and they would kill what they didn't understand.And this is what prompts our story. Hrothgar killed a troll, for all intents and purposes, and it's child, Grendel, on reaching adulthood sets upon the Danes so thoroughly, the hero sails from Geatland to fulfill a blood oath after hearing the gruesome tale. Soon he begins to suspect he has become involved not in a war over territory or food, but a personal grudge against just one man who is prepared to let his people suffer for his mistakes. "What is a troll?" he asks a tight-lipped Hrothgar.This is not to suggest Beowulf is a modern man. He is open-minded, intelligent, brave, and a natural leader, but there are things hidden even from him. The outcast witch, Selma (Polley) has that honor. A postmodern woman who has learned a few tricks to ensure Hrothgar's men leave her - mostly - alone, she has earned a reputation as a mystic who can foretell the deaths of others. Her victimization has given her the only real wisdom in the film, that there is an honor to Grendel worth more than blood oaths, that binds him to Hrothgar through vengeance and to her out of shame. Beowulf, like Grendel, has to first wrong Selma to gain this understanding. 'What is a troll?' One could well ask, 'what is a hero?' The competing elements of the old gods and Christianity are treated in the film comically, in the form of two priests, one of Odin who is a servant of the king, and one of Christ, whose presence is tolerated because of the Grendel crisis. When Grendel's mother comes seeking vengeance, both are washed away with the rest of hope.The locations are inspired. Filmed in his native Iceland, Gunnarsson marches his cast over shoals and cliffs, places not exactly up to code. I doubt there was any coconut water on set. The wide shots of the landscape are much more than background here, every bit as rugged as when it was first colonized hundreds of years after the Beowulf legend came to be. The horses and much of the cast are Icelandic, which works just fine for dark-age Daneland. The accents, however, are overall confusing. Most of the Geats use a Scottich brogue, while Selma, the outsider, speaks fluent Canadian. Geats and Danes had a common language, making any differentiation artifactual, and, I think, unwelcome. In the acting department there are no miscasts. It is actually a little refreshing how great everyone is (accents aside). For all that, the film has a cheap sort of look, especially in costume and set design. Heorot would probably fall down if anyone shut the door too hard.Beowulf & Grendel is a quirky, unfaithful historical drama. There is no attempt to include a dragon in the third act, thank gods. Of all the ways this story has been regurgitated, this is perhaps the most experimental, in a way even more distant a retelling than The 13th Warrior (1999), which also replaced myth with men, but without humanizing them. In that film, heroes and villains are still archetypal, whereas in Gunnarsson's, Beowulf struggles with the fact he and Grendel actually have very little to fight about. Arguably, even in the final shots the man just doesn't get it. Neither, it seems, did audiences. 7.5 / 10

Regardless of what I say in this text, I want you to know that this is a decent film, and an interesting take on the Beowulf mythos. You should probably check it out regardless.Essentially, this is an attempt to tell the story of Beowulf as realistically as possible (up to defeating Grendel's mother). The idea is to show how tales get inflated and grow to absurd levels. It also delves into the concepts of cycling revenge and mercy, which is new to the tale, but not unwelcome.Grendel gets a major overhaul as well. Instead of being some sort of hideous villain, he's merely a Neanderthal. It's a bit difficult to believe, but not completely absurd to those of the evolutionary persuasion (there's also a brief commentary on Christianity, but too vague to comment on).The choice of having Beowulf look decidedly similar to his compatriots is also an interesting choice. It gives the impression that he is no different from any other man, adding to the realism of the story.The evolution of the story goes quite well, as Beowulf and his men hunt Grendel, who fights back once properly threatened. Of course, he eventually is defeated, and the story could have soundly ended on a strong note.Unfortunately, this is where things went downhill. Enter Grendel's mother. She's not a Neanderthal. She's a mermaid, and not the fairy tale type variety. So Grendel's father, a Neanderthal, did it with a mermaid, and there kid turns out to be strictly Neanderthal. Regardless of that last sentence's plot point, claiming that Neanderthals existed in that era could be argued, but the same could not be made for mermaids. That's just a bit too far. The attempt to paint realism is immediately boot.Still, if you can overlook that one tendency, this IS the closest thing to a realistic telling, but it makes me wonder what they thought the dragon really was.

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.

This movie is like one big pile of long empty shots about nothing, with as a redeeming quality that it features some beautiful scenery, which really fits the Beowulf story. The movie was entirely shot in Iceland, Oscar nominated Icelandic director Sturla Gunnarsson's native country.Problem is really the movie its script, that just never knows to pump any excitement into the movie. You could really say that "Beowulf & Grendel" is for most part a boring movie, in which just nothing happens for a long while. Of course there are some moments of action but it's so incredibly small scaled and fast cut off and above all things the movie more lays its emphasis on its scenery and (very dark) sets it seems. The actually story also quite differs from the original old poem about the Beowulf legend. It's of course OK to differ, though only if it is for the best of the movie and its story. Can't really say this is the case with this movie.Gerard Butler probably just thought it would be a good practice for his "300" sword and sandals action-role to appear in this movie. I just can't imaging that it thanks to the script that he approved to star in this movie. Stellan Skarsgård also shows up in the role of Hrothgar. He is always good in these type of roles and this movie is no exception, though it obviously isn't the best or most interesting role out of his career, which is not his fault though really. Most of the other actors are below par. (Sarah Polley? Whoa! You are horrible!) There also appear a lot of Icelandic actors in the movie but they aren't given any large speaking parts. The spoken language of this movie is still plain English...well, more Scottish English actually. Most of the main characters remain totally uninteresting, including the main character Beowulf, which of course is obviously never a good thing for any movie.Sturla Gunnarsson might know how to handle scenery but he just doesn't know how to bring a story interestingly and/or exciting. Also his action-direction is severely lacking. He is also a person with some documentaries under his belt. I think this is also were most of his talent lies. The one Oscar nomination he has received in his life (as of yet) also is for a Canadian produced documentary, entitled "After the Axe". No idea what that one is all about though. Apparently it's 'a cinematic drama that examines executive terminations and a new industry that specializes in handling them.' Sounds very interesting...My advice to him; start making some more nature documentaries, this is obviously were most of your talent lies.All the movie is basically about is Beowulf trying to fight and kill the 'troll' Grendel, who is troubling and killing the Danes. All that ever happens though is Grendel refusing to fight Beowulf, with as a result lots of uninteresting mumbling about religion and long empty shots in which never interesting is ever happening. It's a very flat movie and I'm not too sure what they tried to achieve with it really. It's flawed in basically every department but foremost you should blame the script.A boring small scaled epic, that is a real lackluster. Never thought I would say this but stick to the 2007 Robert Zemeckis version instead. I tend to believe that even the Christopher Lambert movie version is better than this one, even though I haven't even seen that movie yet.3/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/