They told a completely different tale misusing the title and character names of Beowulf. Aside from that, the story was awful in every way, which would take too long to detail. This film should not have been made.

I try to steer clear of motion-capture CGI that attempts to border on realism: I either want my films to be live-action footage or clearly animated. I find the awkward middle ground just a little unsettling. That said, with such a cracking tale (the original poem is a thousand years old—stories don't endure for that long if they're crap), superior acting from a solid cast, and masterful storytelling by director Robert Zemeckis, I'm willing to make an exception in this case.Zemeckis's film does deviate from the original story a tad, which might upset the literature purists, but since the average cinema-goer probably has as much in-depth knowledge of the Beowulf legend as I have of the inner workings of the Hadron Collider, I can allow a little artistic license. With such an epic narrative, enjoyable action scenes, cool monsters, a naked digital Angelina Jolie, and a CG rendering of the main character's ass for those who like that sort of thing (thankfully Beowulf looks nothing like Ray Winstone), there surely is something for everyone.

No..just no. I am a die-hard fan of the epic Beowulf, and this movie could have been amazing - had they named it anything but Beowulf. The positives:The voice work is perfect and brings every character to life in such a way that the viewer will feel the emotions the characters feel.The animation is extremely well done - at points I could not believe I was watching CGI characters..I loved how they shot the action scenes as they had the right degree of grittiness without being excessive. The musical score is powerful - it accentuates the battles and grandiose character of the film.Now for why I disliked the film so much:I was a bit put off by their representation of Hrothgar, as they made him appear to be nothing more than a bumbling drunken oaf who could not keep his paws off of Wealtheow - this is not at all accurate. Further, I was dismayed at the proclamation that Grendel is "Hrothgar's shame" because he could have no children with Wealtheow - again this is not true, he had not one child, but TWO by Wealtheow - Hreðric and Hroðmund. They completely glossed over the important characterization of Hrothgar as a good king, a generous king, and an honorable man; this greatly detracts from his character and the viewer's understanding of WHY his people loved him so much. They did not love him because he was a stereotypical grunting, lecherous, old fat guy, despite what is shown here. I tolerated their interpretation of how Grendel looked. Though, he's not supposed to be some awkward half-cooked baby creature. He's the malformed seed of Cain. I disagree with the direction they took regarding Grendel's motives for killing the men in Heorot(which I felt could have been far more majestic, like it was in the poem). Grendel is not driven mad by the singing, he is driven mad by the fact that he was an outcast from their society - he had no culture to belong to so he sought to ruin the society and culture of Hrothgar's people. Grendel is a warning to those who are cast out of their hall. Now in the film, Grendel really has no motivation for killing the people in Heorot other than the fact that, "he's a monster who dislikes noise so he kills the noisy people." I further disagree with their portraying Beowulf as, essentially, a borderline liar. He ripped Grendel's arm off with raw power - that's why he's such an astonishing man who's wearing dazzling armor(which is significant because he earned all of that armor through martial prowess). This is why no other man could kill Grendel - no other man possessed the raw physical power of Beowulf. In this film, he ripped it off with a chain tied to a post, then claimed he ripped it off with his bare hands. We have no reason to doubt the narrator of the Beowulf poem, so I do not understand why the writer of the film decided to add this. It's completely unnecessary, and my only conclusion is that the writer must be pandering to some ludicrous modernistic mentality of, "well, something that amazing could not REALLY happen, so he must be embellishing."The scene with Grendel's mother is offensive to anyone who's a fan of Beowulf. This scene obliterates the entire confrontation and significance behind it. Beowulf is not some lecherous imbecile who falls prey to the wiles of a monster begging him to procreate with her. Grendel's mother is not some sexy succubus who seduces men and kills them. Also, the entire persona of Beowulf is that he's MORE than just a man in every aspect. This scene is beyond ridiculous. It's insulting to the original source material and to anyone who's a fan of said source material. Beowulf then blatantly lies to Hrothgar's face about killing Grendel's mother, thus discrediting his character as being honorable and praiseworthy. Not to mention Wiglaf is killed, Beowulf's beloved companion, by Grendel's mother specifically because he is Beowulf's beloved companion. This does not happen in the movie. Instead, a bunch of nameless characters are slaughtered while Beowulf sleeps and then Beowulf decides to kill Grendel's mother because, well, she is Grendel's mother and still plaguing Heorot. Then, just to punch everyone who loves Beowulf right between the eyes, the writer creates a scenario in which the dragon Beowulf faces at the end of the tale...is...the..spawn of..Grendel's mother. Why? I cannot fathom WHY the writer believed this was a good idea. The reason Beowulf goes to fight the dragon is not because he's trying to right some wrong he committed (because men are just lecherous individuals unable to control themselves from sexing a demon), it's because he cannot give up his desire for glory. It is a cycle that will end up leaving his people without a ruler just when they need a ruler most. It is a message against seeking personal glory at the expense of your people.I am greatly disappointed in one of my favorite authors - Neil Gaiman, for perverting Beowulf. I cannot, and will not, recommend this film to anyone who has read and enjoyed Beowulf. That being said, I would recommend to someone who has never come in to contact with the source material, and does not mind watching a retelling of the tale(with the precaution that it is not really an accurate retelling).

A lot of things have been said about Beowulf that are entirely undeserved. Amazing, a masterpiece, the best movie of the year... Beowulf is none of these things. When this movie came out, it was recommended to me that i avoid it, because it was not worth the money. I should have listened. They should have also explained, that it was not worth the time. Allow me to explain. I am aware that this film is entirely CG. It was made clear to me within seconds of it. The poorly textured skin, the bad motion capture, the poor fluid dynamics, everything about this film stuck out like a sore thumb. Perhaps i noticed more because visual effects is what i do for a living, but even with that, no other film i have EVER watched (and i am not exaggerating) has EVER given me a worse case of filmmakers sickness. Many movies i have watched where the CG is noticeable, but its never brought me out of the story to this extent where i can't even pay attention to anything else. And don't get me wrong, i was still about to excuse it, hoping i would look it up and find a 10 million dollar budget, or perhaps less. But no, this movie cost a whopping 130 million. All of which was pîssed carelessly down the drain.The creators say it was a CG masterpiece. It was not. I've seen students that make better work for their first character design portfolio. They could have bothered to use normal maps or bump maps to create a more realistic skin textures, especially considering the amount of skin shown. They didn't. They supposedly used next gen motion capture. I was surprised to find they even used it at all. They could have done better with a decent animator and some blend shapes. With that kind of budget they should have used Realflow, with simulated fluid dynamics instead of the cheap wave displacements that don't even interact with the characters in the water. they didn't even use a Fresnel shader on the water, it was so freaking amateur. the only decent work was done in the design of Grendel and the sea monsters, and that was in imagination, rather than detail. None of the characters had life to them, the recoil of limbs, a sense of tissue, recoil, anticipation. The animators straight up didn't know the 12 basic principles of animation. Lets remember, this is 2007. We can't bash something that was done 7 years ago can we? Yes, we can. The incredible hulk came out a year later with only 30 million more of a budget, and a hyper realism that put this movie to shame, like child's play. Assassins creed II came out just 2 years later with considerably MORE CG elements, 3 cities worth including a variety of landscapes and only a 30 million budget, less than a 4th of what this movie cost, and rendered it with a considerable amount of detail, reflections and depth of field IN REAL TIME that came close to what this movie accomplished with offline render farms, of a major studio. Just recently watchdogs was released, with a budget of 68 million and graphics that pretty much beat Beowulf to a pulp, also in real time. And lets remember, these are video games we are talking about. They have poly counts to worry about, and part of that budget went to programmers, and level designers, there is absolutely NO excuse why Beowulf should have created the garbage it did with the budget it had, and the 4 or so locations it even dealt with. What, you can't even hire a dynamics expert? You're really going to burst a frigging piece of wood into a mist of stock footage splinters rather than the more realistic approach, 3D prefracturing and hard body sims? I could do that with just 100$ and the action essentials pack and it still would look better. You're frigging kidding me here.I could go on all day about the graphics, terrible blood hits, that weird gold coating Angelina Jolie--Angelina Jolie? Seriously?--but you know what, lets address what else is wrong with the film. For one, they completely ruined a classic short story. The dialog is so corny. The characters are all f*cked in the head, and they're not even good caricatures of scumbags, they're just plain unbelievable. And when i say unbelievable i mean those characters could not and would not exist under any circumstances and if they did exist and you put them into a room together they would not behave as such. One moment the dude is kicking his slave the next he is talking about honor and glory? Or the drunken king who's clothes basically fall off and then the next minute he's a fighter and a hero and then the next he's a poor man begging for help? I mean make up your mind goddåmn it. And the worst part is, in the story he's nothing like that. Beowulf doesn't f*ck Grendels mother either. And she's not pretty. And Grendel isn't a whiny little bîtch. And i'm not sure he even speaks. And there's this whole part they left out about ever hero trying and failing, and this epic battle as Grendel's mother drags Beowulf down under the lake that i was really hoping to see, instead the dude just basically jumped in the water and then hopped out in the underground cavern all Mario like, like he doesn't even need to grab ahold of something and pull himself out, he can just swim jump. Its f*cking stupid man. I hate you people. Next time the producers have millions of dollars to pîss away, give it to me. Or maybe flush it down the toilet. The toilet would find a better use for it.