Mr. Floppy 11.02.08: Beowulf

Posted by Peter Bielik on 11.02.2008

No, Ray Winstone really doesn't look like that.

Halloween is here again and wouldn't you know it, it's the same time as last year. Tickets for horror films in multiplexes around the world are cheaper, the seats are filled by hordes of intoxicated teenagers anxiously waiting to laugh preferably at the most inappropriate times and cemeteries are going through their juiciest tourist season.

I found out it's bit of a problem to find a decent horror movie to write about. The biggest advantage of most horror films is that they are relatively cheap so they have no problems to easily get in the black numbers. I'm sure it's mainly this reason (apart from quality storylines of course) that makes the studios churn out dozens of them every single year. Even suckfests like The Hills have Eyes II and Hostel II (one of the most pathetic horrors I've ever seen) managed to break even and earn some cash to buy a Ferrari or two. So I had problems finding a legitimate horror flop that was actually worth writing about.

But Halloween isn't just about scares, frights and jack-o'-lanterns. It's also an opportunity to let our imagination go wilder than usually. And you know what takes a lot of imagination? To come up with good stories in the fantasy genre. Now, I've stated repeatedly this field isn't my cup of coffee, but every now and then I'm pleasantly surprised. I've seen Beowulf only very recently and I liked it a lot more than I expected going in. To me, it was a great movie. So when I checked how good ol' Zemeckis fared at the box office, I found out Beowulf was a flop big enough to be written about. How convenient. And the movie is pretty violent, Grendel is disgusting so I guess I'm not going too far from the holiday's spirit. If I am, feel free not to let me know. :-)




Year of the cock-up: 2007

Budget: $150,000,000

Domestic gross: $82,195,215

Foreign gross: $114,068,876

Worldwide gross: $196,264,091


Robert Zemeckis is now widely known for his inclination towards new technologies and finding innovative ways to use them in his movies. In 1988 Zemeckis near flawlessly combined live-action and an animated feature in the now classic film Who framed Roger Rabbit? . Roger is one of those films that ages extraordinarily well. I can't imagine any child (or a childish grown-up) not enjoying the movie. It was a well deserved critical and commercial success and in hindsight a sign of things we can expect from the talented director.

Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump and even Contact all contained visual effects that weren't exactly the norm at the time. In Death Becomes Her, the most iconic images are those of Goldie Hawn with a hole in her abdomen and Meryl Streep readjusting her neck after falling from the stairs. Forrest Gump while a great movie in its own right was made even more impressive by the seamless interaction of the main character with many historic figures (John Lennon, JFK) as well as the vanishing of Gary Sinise's legs. And Contact, while far from a perfect film (although, apart from the ending I actually liked it quite a bit), was once again using visual effects, which admittedly weren't groundbreaking, but were nonetheless not seen in this particular form beforehand (the psychedelic ending being the best example).

After these films (Cast Away and What lies beneath were hardly a technological revolution) Zemeckis really slowed down and took his time with his new baby- the performance capture. Generally speaking, this technology is still sitting comfortably in its diapers. Zemeckis spent four years on the production of The Polar Express, which was supposed to popularize this new way of making movies. That didn't happen for multiple reasons.
The first problem was the technology was more interesting on paper than in practice. In motion, The Polar Express didn't have any special distinguishing features that would set it aside from all the other CGI flicks (from casual viewer's perspective). I don't think that was what Zemeckis was going for. Another problem was that the director was so absorbed in his new technology, he forgot one little thing- a good story. The story is so thin, bland and uninteresting that as a result the film was` intriguing probably only to small children. And don't give me the crap about the novel being the same. This was a feature-length film so some adjustments should have been made. And the last thing I want to mention are the emotions. Any response the movie might have generated was neutered by the incredibly dead eyes and expressions of the characters.
The Polar Express itself was a fairly big flop considering the production and marketing costs, so it's kind of a surprise that Zemeckis got another load of money for yet another film using the same technology.


Beowulf is an old epic English poem which is, by all accounts, very well known. Without any shame, I admit that I haven't heard of it beforehand. This original source is the reason why I wasn't interested in the movie. I just had no intention or desire to watch a movie where a brave hero in shining armor slays all the evil monsters and saves the day. Been there done that. Of course, I was wrong in my assumption as the screewnwriting duo of Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman took the old poem and made it their own. More on that later.

Because The Polar Express wasn't much of a success, Zemeckis decided to try a different route this time around and changed his target audience from children to adults (teenagers with mouths full of popcorn can also stop by). And for that, you need some popular faces. Cue in Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich and Angelina Jolie. Hopkins was here to add credibility, Malkovich to provide a sleazy scumbag, and Angelina Jolie to secure sex-appeal and lots of pubescent boys anxious to see her digitalized chest. The rest of the characters were also portrayed by talented actors, although it was a bit questionable why they chose Ray Winstone as the title character. Sure, Beowulf subsequently had his own visual identity that wasn't diminished by a famous Hollywood face, but strictly from marketing standpoint it wasn't the wisest move. Quality-wise, it wasn't a bad move as Winstone's voice suited the character fairly well. Another interesting choice was Crispin Glover, who provided motion capture and voice of Grendel (not the looks I hope).

So the actors were cast and Zemeckis could happily dress them in clothes no sane person would wear to a job interview and the entire movie was shot basically on one big stage surrounded by blue-screen with almost no real sets to speak of. After all this came the core of the work on the film- put everything into a computer and magically turn a bunch of dudes in tights into imposing Nordic warriors.
After seeing the final product, I have to admit Sony Pictures Imageworks have done an amazing job. The difference between reality and animation didn't completely disappear of course, but for instance Sir Anthony Hopkins' rendering was really spectacular. While watching his old, tired, but still fairly hell-raising king, most of the time I forgot I was watching an animated feature and concentrated only on the character alone. Unfortunately, time and budget constraints (although the film was already very expensive) didn't allow the same level of detail on every character and the quality of the presented images thus shifts back and forth. Robin Wright-Penn as the queen especially is so artificial, she resembles more a plastic doll than a real person.

Both the producers and Zemeckis alike probably had high expectations from the film when they decided to place it for a release in the winter season as a prospected hit. I don't know why, but when it comes to movies, sometimes you can smell a flop from miles away. Beowulf is one of those films. Unproven technlology, seemingly banal plot (I stress the word seemingly) and an anonymous face on the posters probably resulted in people largely ignoring the film. The reaction was also very mixed and so Beowulf passed the theaters more quickly than an anorectic woman passes a Burger King. The box office doesn't look so disastrous, but the fact is the movie didn't break even and expectations were a lot higher.

As I said, I liked the film and did so the point I really regretted not seeing in a theater. And I'm convinced it must have been a real treat to see Beowulf in IMAX, because even though the characters' animation isn't perfect, many scenes are downright spectacular. Beowulf's battle with the sea monsters (which is suspiciously similar to God of War), the dragon or Grendel are all amazing to watch. Grendel in particular is well-done. He's very grotesque and unrealistic, but at the same time repulsive and disgusting. Excellent work.

I've already mentioned Neil Gaiman's and Roger Avary's scriptwriting and story which I'm returning to now. Both writers wisely deduced that the time-jumps in the poem (the last third of both the poem and film jumps decades forward) enabled them to interpret the story in their own way and fill out some holes. And so, Beowulf isn't a brave and chivalrous hero, but instead a mere imperfect human, whose power is truly tested when he faces his own lust and vanity (guess which side wins?). This is a simple twist, but I didn't expect it and the resulting plot was actually surprisingly smart and compelling.
Beowulf is also about as far from a kids movie as you can get in American mainstream animation. I'm surprised the film escaped with a mere PG-13 rating. The warriors in this film aren't handsome young heroes (see 300), but rather a group of big, sweaty barbarians who spend their time away from battle with women (sons all across the world people- no devoted husbands here) and binge drinking. Anthony Hopkins' king spends a good chunk of his screen time drunk out of his gourd (plus he also has one big skeleton in his closet) and the viewer is also treated to chopped arms, a head being bitten-off and a heart being torn out. I'll say it bluntly- I haven't seen a more entertaining fantasy that an adult audience can enjoy (Hello Narnia) in a very long time.




I've already briefly mentioned the reasons why Beowulf flopped. The technology might have hurt it a bit. If this film was live-action, it would have been absolutely amazing. Then again, the budget would probably need to be a lot bigger.
Zemeckis simply picked the wrong time to do this film. Even though Beowulf would unquestionably convince more people of the power of performance capture (and its promises for the future), it was just a shame the movie came out only after Final Fantasy and The Polar Express, which were both met with indifference. Both films were too vanilla to really capture people's interest and logically there wasn't any huge demand for yet another movie using the same technology. It's a shame really, because Beowulf is a great film and compared to 300 (as long as we're talking heroic epics) comes out as a pretty decisive winner.

So Zemeckis brought this on himself, but to his credit his film really didn't deserve to flop. Maybe next time.

But since Beowulf was a Robert Zemeckis vehicle I herby award him the title Mr. Floppy.



So there you go. Once again I urge anyone who hasn't seen the film to do so. It's well worth the look.

Happy Halloween (a little later, but the spirit is there :-)).

- Peter