mitchum_unscented
Jan. 2006 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen14
Bewertung von mitchum_unscented
This film tells the basic story of the epic poem Beowulf, about 13 soldiers led by Beowulf who go to Denmark to kill a monster. There is some fighting, but mostly the film focuses on political correctness.
Done skillfully, this could have made it a better film. For example, 1989 film "Eric the Viking" does a hilarious job of poking fun at at the un-politically correct nature the old Viking legends. As another example, Martin Gardner's book "Grendel" also tells the Beowulf story, but plays against the old patriarchal hero myth by telling it from the monster's perspective. Unfortunately, "Beowulf and Grendel" adds political correctness in a way that detracts from the story instead of improving it.
First, they make the monster sympathetic and the soldiers unsympathetic. The king and the priest also get rough treatment. Then they add a new hero, a woman who had been brought to the village as a prize by a man who killed her parents on a raid. It's implied that she later killed him in bed, and now lives manless outside the village doing wicca. Beowulf is made partly sympathetic by showing that he is uncomfortable in his job as a soldier, and by making him the least macho of all the men.
Because they do this in clumsy ways, such as making the king a pathetic drunk and denying the soldiers anything but the most stereotypical dialog, they only mute the core storyline without successfully adding tension or complexity.
"Beowulf and Grendel" is also too slow, with too much screen time spent on the scenery. The locations are beautiful and costumes and sets all look very authentic, but that would be true of any professional production with a decent budget. But instead of placing the action inside the scenery, they show the scenery outside the action, wasting it. And while the costumes look authentic, the movie doesn't give you a real sense of how people lived in that era.
If you want to see a better Beowulf re-interpretation, let me recommend "The 13th Warrior" (1999), which is more loosely based on the epic. It's a lot more fun, and has much better characters. "The 13th Warrior" also does a better job of bringing the historical period to life, with such little details as the horrors of 10th century personal hygiene. Plus the fight scenes are better.
Done skillfully, this could have made it a better film. For example, 1989 film "Eric the Viking" does a hilarious job of poking fun at at the un-politically correct nature the old Viking legends. As another example, Martin Gardner's book "Grendel" also tells the Beowulf story, but plays against the old patriarchal hero myth by telling it from the monster's perspective. Unfortunately, "Beowulf and Grendel" adds political correctness in a way that detracts from the story instead of improving it.
First, they make the monster sympathetic and the soldiers unsympathetic. The king and the priest also get rough treatment. Then they add a new hero, a woman who had been brought to the village as a prize by a man who killed her parents on a raid. It's implied that she later killed him in bed, and now lives manless outside the village doing wicca. Beowulf is made partly sympathetic by showing that he is uncomfortable in his job as a soldier, and by making him the least macho of all the men.
Because they do this in clumsy ways, such as making the king a pathetic drunk and denying the soldiers anything but the most stereotypical dialog, they only mute the core storyline without successfully adding tension or complexity.
"Beowulf and Grendel" is also too slow, with too much screen time spent on the scenery. The locations are beautiful and costumes and sets all look very authentic, but that would be true of any professional production with a decent budget. But instead of placing the action inside the scenery, they show the scenery outside the action, wasting it. And while the costumes look authentic, the movie doesn't give you a real sense of how people lived in that era.
If you want to see a better Beowulf re-interpretation, let me recommend "The 13th Warrior" (1999), which is more loosely based on the epic. It's a lot more fun, and has much better characters. "The 13th Warrior" also does a better job of bringing the historical period to life, with such little details as the horrors of 10th century personal hygiene. Plus the fight scenes are better.
I don't want to scare anyone off from seeing "X-Men 3". If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend just seeing it before you read this or any other review. It's a lot better than anything else in the theaters.
That said, I found it the weakest of the three X-Men movies.
They've tried to jam three of the major story lines from the comic books into one movie: the government's war against mutants, the conflict between the X-Men and Magneto's Brotherhood, and Jean Grey's transformation into the Phoenix. Plus they've added some more twists that differ from the comics. It's good material, but it's just too much to cram into a single movie and do it all justice.
Also, the action and special effects have come down a notch. They set the bar high in the first movie, and then raised it in the second, but in the third they lost that edge. In the first two, they found clever ways to make small things capture your attention, like the toy on Magneto's desk that was powered by his mind, or the way Xavier froze all the visitors in the museum. The first two also had scenes you can watch again and again on DVD, like the fight in the Statue of Liberty or Nightcrawler's attack on the President. I didn't see any scenes in the third that I'd watch again and again.
Finally, there are lots of new characters, but none of them are developed. In the first movie, all the characters were fresh. In the second they added Nightcrawler, William Stryker, and Stryker's son. In the third they add a ton of new mutants, but none of them are given any individuality. Magneto's army of mutants was the biggest disappointment. You expect a battle filled with hundreds of strange mutant powers, but all you get is a big fist-fight.
I'm not saying this isn't a good movie. It's worth seeing, it's entertaining, and it has a solid story. I can't think of many third movies in a series that were as good as this one. I'm glad I went to see it, and I'll definitely be seeing the fourth movie when it comes out. Maybe the X-Men series will follow the pattern of the Star Trek series where the even numbered movies are the best ones.
That said, I found it the weakest of the three X-Men movies.
They've tried to jam three of the major story lines from the comic books into one movie: the government's war against mutants, the conflict between the X-Men and Magneto's Brotherhood, and Jean Grey's transformation into the Phoenix. Plus they've added some more twists that differ from the comics. It's good material, but it's just too much to cram into a single movie and do it all justice.
Also, the action and special effects have come down a notch. They set the bar high in the first movie, and then raised it in the second, but in the third they lost that edge. In the first two, they found clever ways to make small things capture your attention, like the toy on Magneto's desk that was powered by his mind, or the way Xavier froze all the visitors in the museum. The first two also had scenes you can watch again and again on DVD, like the fight in the Statue of Liberty or Nightcrawler's attack on the President. I didn't see any scenes in the third that I'd watch again and again.
Finally, there are lots of new characters, but none of them are developed. In the first movie, all the characters were fresh. In the second they added Nightcrawler, William Stryker, and Stryker's son. In the third they add a ton of new mutants, but none of them are given any individuality. Magneto's army of mutants was the biggest disappointment. You expect a battle filled with hundreds of strange mutant powers, but all you get is a big fist-fight.
I'm not saying this isn't a good movie. It's worth seeing, it's entertaining, and it has a solid story. I can't think of many third movies in a series that were as good as this one. I'm glad I went to see it, and I'll definitely be seeing the fourth movie when it comes out. Maybe the X-Men series will follow the pattern of the Star Trek series where the even numbered movies are the best ones.
Girl who takes her supernatural good luck for granted loses her mojo to unlucky but surprisingly cute loser. Of course you are wondering what happens next. Does she get it back? Does she learn a life lesson along the way? Do the two fall in love in the end?
This isn't even the kind of bad movie that you can enjoy watching for the humor of how bad it is. Those are the movies with amateur actors or plots that don't make sense because they ran out of money half way through. Or the ones where they try to do something innovative and are just weird. This is worse -- it's professionally bad. Everything is smooth and marginally professional and completely predictable, and painfully boring.
I saw this because there was a slight "not as bad as you expect" buzz, and now I'll admit I was suckered. This movie is so formulaic I doubt I'll even remember having seen it a year from now.
This isn't even the kind of bad movie that you can enjoy watching for the humor of how bad it is. Those are the movies with amateur actors or plots that don't make sense because they ran out of money half way through. Or the ones where they try to do something innovative and are just weird. This is worse -- it's professionally bad. Everything is smooth and marginally professional and completely predictable, and painfully boring.
I saw this because there was a slight "not as bad as you expect" buzz, and now I'll admit I was suckered. This movie is so formulaic I doubt I'll even remember having seen it a year from now.