![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYl3wwtuujE303cNA0z5CTrHoYdL32gvsWlnDrLLh0NVbp50Os6JJOxziGYXjObY4rhzBcsvOQXwF0VWW8ObcoSV_SmYSHZPw9ZHcWUiuyPXWO3rz1p-al_wgsq4nTHsnMoLOY/s320/05163001.jpg)
If you know the story of the book, if you like the sound of the original, if you value the tradition and history of this ancient of all English epic poems, then skip the latest film version. Maybe it is okay as a flick for action fans, but it is not okay as a true representation of the Beowulf tale.
Here's a bit of what the New York Times revieiwer had to say about it:
You don’t need to wait for Angelina Jolie to rise from the vaporous depths naked and dripping liquid gold to know that this “Beowulf” isn’t your high school teacher’s Old English epic poem. Ms. Jolie plays the bad girl in “Beowulf,” a wicked demon, the mother of all monsters — here, Grendel, played by Crispin Glover — who can switch from hag to fab in the wink of a serpentine eye. If you don’t remember this evil babe from the poem, it’s because she’s almost entirely the invention of the screenwriters Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman and the director Robert Zemeckis, who together have plumped her up in words, deeds and curves. These creative interventions aren’t especially surprising given the source material and the nature of big-studio adaptations. There’s plenty of action in “Beowulf,” but even its more vigorous bloodletting pales next to its rich language, exotic setting and mythic grandeur. — Manohla Dargis, The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment