Beowulf : La Légende Viking

I saw Beowulf & Grendel in Toronto at the TIFF and I loved it. The film was beautiful to behold ~ breathtaking scenery of Iceland set alongside a moving and powerful score. The entire cast delivered strong performances. Gerard Butler was a magnificent Beowulf ... emoting the torment of his soul with tender subtlety yet never compromising the intrinsic brutality and strength vital to his character. The story, modified from its original literary version to adapt to a contemporary audience, was profoundly relevant to today's political and social climate. A pleasant surprise in the film is the clever use of unexpected wit and wry humour. If you enjoy a film that will make you think ... this one is for you. natalie(GB.net)

BEOWULF is one of my favourite works of epic poetry, but the subject matter, which jumps all over the place and back and forth through time, is fairly unworkable on film. I was interested to see what the makers of this fairly low budget epic would do with the material, and in the end I was more than satisfied. As the title indicates, BEOWULF & GRENDEL focuses on the central thrust of the story, ignoring side-stories and the later Beowulf vs. dragon showdown to deliver a simple retelling of the main part of the age-old legend.

The story is largely expanded from the original, with many peripheral characters added and extra scenes. Some of these work (Eddie Marsan's psychotic Christian missionary helps to set the film in its time rather well) but others I could have done without, such as Sarah Polley's witch. Still, for the most part, the story is well achieved, with plenty of atmosphere and a real sense of place. Somebody had the brilliant idea of filming in the bleak Icelandic countryside, full of mountains and rocks and waterfalls with nary a blade of grass in sight; the decision paid off (despite problems with the weather during the shoot) and you can really believe the action is taking place over a thousand years ago.

Gerard Butler does well as the hero, his Beowulf equally as rugged as the isolated scenery. His role feels like a dry-run for 300's King Leonidas. Most of the supporting cast are interchangeable, but Stellan Starsgard is fine as the complex, tormented Hrothgar. Grendel is a more sympathetic creation here than in the poem; he's given his own back story, which I didn't mind, and he looks like a caveman rather than a hideous monster. Some of the incident in the eventual showdown between man and monster is changed and the later sub-plot involving Grendel's mother feels rushed, but I felt these problems were insignificant. For the most part, BEOWULF & GRENDEL ably brings to life the heroism and terror of the Anglo-Saxon age.

This is a very updated version of the Anglo-Saxon poem "Beowulf," using contemporary English.This movie still has the mythical, epic qualities of the poem that have inspired readers throughout the ages. In an excellent performance, Gerard Butler effectively captures the conflicted hero Beowulf as he endures the slow erosion of his military code of conduct. Beowulf & Grendel is more than a story of blood and war. Themes of vengeance, loyalty and mercy are powerfully entwined with the beginnings of Christianity in southwest Sweden in 500 AD. Another theme which is explored is human inability to tolerate that which is different. Gerard Butler is extremely effective as Beowulf, but perhaps the best performance in the movie is that delivered by the tempestuous and weirdly beautiful land of Iceland. I think this movie is definitely worth seeing.

Bear with me while I transpose my thoughts from my tangential, blonde head and hopefully it will be worth your read.

Let me first say that Grendel engaged me throughout the movie. There were good performances by many of the cast (Butler's conflicted hero, Skarsgard's noble-but-not-so-noble king) , but Ingvar Sigurdsson owned it as Grendel. Was it the skill of the writer and director in making Grendel a vulnerable human(?) and victim (drawing a sympathy vote from the audience)? Was it Ingvar Sigurdsson's acting skills to express intense emotions and engage the audience despite virtually any words in the script and enough prosthetic make-up to impede facial expressions? All I know is that I connected with Grendel's pain. And isn't that the point?

Another prominent character was the weather. It wasn't on the casting list, but it showed up nonetheless and fought for top billing. It helped to draw you into the ruggedness of the times and the story, but I also found it distracting. Perhaps it's my own distractibility, but for whatever reason, the scenery and weather engaged me more than the story a few times.

The soundtrack was indeed beautiful, but personally, I don't think it fit. To me, the campfire-to-mead-hall timeless folktale would have been better served by a more primitive collection of instruments rather than the majestic orchestra suited to an epic. But that's just my taste.

My main criticism is that to me, the film seemed choppy. I felt like I missed out on some important parts. (I didn't take any washroom breaks, did I?) It may have been the editing. There are others who enjoyed the film much better at the second viewing, so maybe it's all there in the movie beyond my distraction by the scenery and Gerard Butler's rugged good looks. Maybe the movie did its job; after all I'm still chewing on it 2 weeks later. Who knows? I did, however, catch the humor in the film. Andrew Rai Berzins' sharp wit and humor came to the rescue and drew me back in when distractions prevailed.

I'd really like to see it a second time now that my giddiness is over. I was anticipating this movie from the time filming began, and what film can live up to a year's worth of my ruminations and expectations? Now, don't ask me to rate the film with a number. I hate numbers. They don't mean anything. You should never see a movie based on numbers. See it because you want to.

…and if my review left you with more questions than answers, then I've done my job, because that's where the movie left me. Now go see the movie and find your own questions and answers.

I saw the movie at the Vancouver Film Fesitval. I'm familiar with the original story of Beowulf and a modern novel that was told from the monster's perspective and was very much looking forward to the film. The setting is beautiful and I now have a great desire to visit Iceland. Gerard Butler made a fantastic Beowulf. He looked every inch the hero, although I felt the stripped down portrayal of his character detracted from the film. I enjoyed the film but there were several problems with it. The first was that many of the non-English speaking actors, which is most of the cast, do not speak clearly enough, meaning that the viewer can only understand about every third line of the movie. I was not the only who had this problem. Secondly, the idea of turning the story sideways by making Grendel the sympathetic character is interesting, but I found that it detracted from Beowulf's development as a hero and he was portrayed in a heroic light. Third the language use in the film varied between chorus like story telling and modern day words and phrases. I loved the storytelling aspect and was rudely pulled out of my absorption in the ancient Danish world every time a character would use a modern phrase. Finally it never ceases to amaze me that film makers choose the most desolate places to have ancient peoples make their homes. Medusaled, the Danish King's home, was supposed to be a place of great pride and beauty and yet the film has it located in what was probably the windiest, coldest part of Iceland. No human in his/her right mind would live there. I recommend the film for anyone who is a fan of ancient stories or heroic tales but don't go in expecting a work of art.