beowulf Tagged Articles at Cinematical

As an opinionated cinephile, Roger Ebert has every right to dislike 3-D movies. And recently, on his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, he wrote about such disfavor. Basically, in response to accidentally missing the press screening for the new animated 3-D flick Fly Me to the Moon, he admits that, because of a certain prejudice against the format, he likely wouldn't have enjoyed the movie anyway.

My issue here is not to attack Ebert's opinion or his belief that after half a century of dissatisfaction with the format he's never going to change his mind about it. He's free to express both. And while I disagree and am disappointed, I would never claim that Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. He's certainly smarter about film than I'll ever be, and his opinions are far more respected than my own.

However, Ebert is also one of the most widely read film critics in the world, and therefore he is a pretty influential person when it comes to the subject of movies. And I would hate for moviegoers to dismiss the new wave of 3-D movies simply because of Ebert's stance on the format. So, I merely intend to respond to his opinion with an opinion of my own, as apparently one of the wider read gushers on the topic of digital 3-D.

Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf took a lot of hits for its perceived silliness, a verdict I could never quite sign on to. First of all, silly compared to what? Have these people seen the 1999 space opera Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert? Compared to that, Zemeckis's Beowulf is a sober meditation on the human condition. Have they seen the Gerard Butler clunker Beowulf and Grendel? Come on, guys: considering what the movies have done to this story in the past, last year's high-tech effort seems like serious business to me.

What about the source material – the ancient Old English epic poem upon which these movies purport to be based? If you've ever read it (or tried to read it), the perversions of the adaptations shouldn't surprise you. It's both begging for action movie treatment and impossible to faithfully adapt into anything resembling a compelling action movie. The story is credited with generating many of the archetypes we see in our fiction, and indeed, it's so archetypical that by modern standards, it's a skeleton; there's nothing there.

Seriously – you know how people complain about movies whose plots can be fully described in one sentence? A faithful Beowulf would take this phenomenon to new heights. A synopsis would read something like this: Beowulf beats up Grendel, Grendel's mom, and a dragon, and dies. The end. Some complained that the Zemeckis version distorted Beowulf, but I'd have liked to see their reaction to an undistorted adaptation. Trust me, it wouldn't work. There's a reason that all these screenwriters have scrambled to add elements to the story.

I don't know the last time I felt like a kid at the movies, but while watching Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D this past week, I honestly reverted to my 8-year-old self. That isn't to say the movie is necessarily as good as the movies that astonished me as a kid -- because of the subject matter, I'd think about comparing it to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Goonies, both of which came out when I was around that age, and neither to which this film holds up in terms of originality or storytelling craft. But as far as holding onto my sense of wonder, Journey is up there.

Of course, it's necessary to point out that Journey would be nothing without the digital 3-D factor. It's actually the first live-action narrative feature to be shot and released in the new format (the non-fiction concert films, U2 3D and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour were technically the first live-action 3-D features), and while it's far from perfect, it is a terrific pioneer. I shall continue favoring the look of animated 3-D films, especially those directed as well as Monster House, and I anticipate that James Cameron's Avatar will blow away all live-action 3-D films released prior to its arrival. For now, though, I'm telling you, with the utmost cinemaphilic urgency: you need to see this ASAP.

Is Digital 3D really the future (and savior) of movie theaters and moviegoing? Or is it, like theatrical releases in general, merely a preview of what's to come out soon on home video? As much as I have championed the new technology -- with some exception -- and touted it as a sort of new hope for the exhibition industry, I have had some minor doubts that I've been trying to hide away and ignore. But it may finally be the time to acknowledge and address the facts: Digital 3D is not here to save cinemas and it isn't exclusively the future of movie going. It's the future of movie watching as a whole. And since we're already prone to choosing our living rooms to auditoriums, it's mostly the future of home viewing.

There have been 3D processors available for your home theater for years, courtesy of Sensio, which I actually wrote about way back in 2006. However, the expenses required to equip your home with the technology were enough that it didn't seem too threatening. And such products aren't exactly that well known, probably for that reason that they aren't reasonable for the masses. Meanwhile, the new 3D technology for cinemas has since been given a whole lot of exposure, mainly because they are available or are becoming available all over the globe. 3D movies are also more expensive than regular movies, but they're still relatively affordable to just about anyone. So, obviously in the last two years, it has been easy to forget about Sensio and go on being excited about Real D and the other companies making Digital 3D equipment for movie theaters.

30 Days of Night
In Barrow, Alaska, winter brings 30 days of darkness along with the biting cold. (And I thought dark-by-5 pm sucked.) No sun, just bitterly cold blackness. Unsurprisingly, this attracts some particularly nasty, bloodthirsty vamps -- ones that aren't sexy and selective like Anne Rice's fanged ones. They decide to take advantage of their 24-hour, 30-day free-for-all and start killing off the town's residents who didn't head south. You've got Josh Hartnett and Melissa George as human vamp fighters ill-equipped for the challenge, the Renfield-like Stranger (Ben Foster), and a troupe of baddies led by the wonderful Danny Huston's Marlow. Both Erik and Ryan dug the film, saying things like: "Visually...the film looked absolutely incredible" and "there's still a solid, well-constructed vampire movie to enjoy here, and I did enjoy it."

After all of the funky mid-production goodies that came from the set, it's not surprising that there's a bunch of features on this release. You've got a commentary with Hartnett, George, and producer Rob Tapert, a bunch of featurettes about adapting the graphic novel, building the sound stage, camera techniques, gorey stuff, stunts, vampire design, night shoots, and casting. There's also Episode 1 of Blood +, and for the Blu-Ray editions, there's even a film/novel comparison gallery.

Check Out Ryan Stewart's Review | Buy the DVD

Beowulf
While I wasn't the biggest fan of this one (I missed seeing the subtle facial expressions of the excellent actors involved, and preferred the earlier Beowulf & Grendel), this is certainly the biggest release to hit shelves this year. Along with Neil Gaiman, Robert Zemeckis went back to performance-capture technology to bring the Old English epic to the screen. Ray Winstone roars as the powerful Beowulf, Crispin Glover screeches as the desperate Grendel, and Angelina Jolie seduces as Grendel's mother -- otherwise known as Jolie nude, with a tail. And we can't forget the Hopkins, Wright Penn, Malkovich, and Lohman. There are some pretty stunning visuals, and with this cast, you can't go completely wrong.

As for the DVD, you can pick up the director's cut, which offers a solid array of goodies besides Zemeckis' cut. There's bits on some of the actors and their performance-captured performances, designing the monster, the poem (and how Zemeckis actually hates it -- go figure), and deleted scenes with different stages of completion.

Check Out Scott's Take & James' Take | Buy the DVD

Other New DVD Releases (February 26)

The Darjeeling Limited (Check out my DVD review.)
The Last Emperor -- Criterion Collection

And, well, Peter Martin covers the rest of the bigger releases with his Indies on DVD.

I just love really random connections between things, which is why I'm digging the story that popped up over at The Hollywood Reporter. It seems that Paramount Pictures is teaming up with a teen-centric virtual world called Habbo to put together a series of virtual goodies based on three of their films. Habbo will have the merchandising rights to two unsurprising flicks -- Beowulf and The Spiderwick Chronicles. However, the third is a totally left-field addition: Mean Girls. Which of these is not like the others? I mean, yes, it's a teen movie, but it's much older than the other two and a totally different sort of film than its companion flicks. How on earth did it get on the list?

As for this whole "virtual marketing" thing... Habbo is this virtual teen hangout/social networking site where you make avatars and interact with other people in these little faux rooms. The deal will allow the site to include themed clothing and furniture for these little things, so I guess one person can dress up like Grendel and then drool over a mini, virtual Cady Heron. But movie goodness doesn't come free. The site allows the kids to purchase credits to buy virtual products. Ah, there's nothing like paying for fake furniture and clothing.

Most people have a favorite place to sit when going to the movies. Some people like the back row; some people like the centermost spot (middle seat, middle row); some people like to sit near the front so that they can stare up at the screen and let the picture fill the limits of their peripheral vision.

I figure that last preference made more sense fifty years ago, when Cinerama and CinemaScope presented vast, expansively shot epics and westerns that were made to surround our senses and engulf our whole eye-span. Nowadays, most movies are too fast-cut and often the camerawork is too shaky to really work for close viewing. Have you ever been forced to sit in the first few rows when a movie is sold out? Wasn't it hard to tell what was going on most of the time?

Personally, I like watching movies close up, when it's appropriate. Unfortunately, it rarely is. But movie theaters can't just start removing those front rows because they aren't good for the moviegoer's eyes. No, that would mean a lot fewer tickets sold, a lot fewer popcorns sold, and a lot less money going to both the theater owners and the movie distributors. So, moviemakers should go back to making movies that are more accommodating to the theatrical audience, right? Yeah, that's not going to happen.

It's only been three months since I began this column on theater exhibition and movie going, but already I've covered all kinds of experiences, both good and bad. And now I'd like to recap the year, concentrating on that quarter year in which The Exhibitionist existed, in order to present you with the best and the worst theatrical experiences I had in 2007. However, while this may seem like a cheap way to link back to previous writings and make an easy article out of that, I assure you that it's only a coincidence that some of my favorite and least favorite moments in exhibition happened since October. Anyway, there are plenty of moments I cite that were never mentioned in The Exhibitionist, so regular or new reader, read on:


Theatrical Experiences of 2007 Part I: The Worst


Pan's Labyrinth at Cobble Hill Cinemas, Brooklyn, NY, 01/16/07

I came away from watching Guillermo del Toro's "masterpiece" underwhelmed, thanks primarily to my inability to appreciate the Oscar-winning cinematography of Guillermo Navarro. How so? Well, the projection of the film where and when I saw it was terribly underlit. At least, I'm guessing it was. I've only seen the film partially since then, on DVD, and at that time it looked much brighter than I remembered.

At the time I saw the film theatrically, though, I just assumed the film was really that dark. Well, actually I thought it could be faulty projection, but I didn't want to get into the issue with the management. Most theaters are quite defensive when it comes to the subject of whether or not they dim the projector bulbs, and whether or not it matters. Even before I became a projectionist I knew thanks to Roger Ebert's Answer Man columns about the stupidity and annoyance of turning down the power on projector bulbs, but unfortunately not everyone else seems to know.

There's a continuing debate about whether or not computer-animated films should be eligible for visual effects awards. But despite the fine line seen by some, others are quick to point out that many effects artists have the same function on Surf's Up as they do on Spider-Man. To them, it should come as quite a triumph that the Oscar shortlist for the visual effects category includes two animated films, Ratatouille and Beowulf. According to the Hollywood Reporter, they join 13 other effects-heavy movies, including definite front-runners Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. The trade points out, however, that this is not the first time animated films have joined the effects race. Back in 1994, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the three nominees (against Cliffhanger and obvious winner Jurassic Park).

The animated effect issue is different now, though, then it was 14 years ago. Animated films now have their own Oscar category, and it's fair to say that is the place to recognize Ratatouille and Beowulf (actually Beowulf shouldn't be recognized at all). Typically movies nominated in the visual effects category are popular blockbusters that wouldn't otherwise receive notice from the Academy. Until there's an Oscar for best sci-fi/fantasy or action movie, this is one of the best ways for a little movie like Transformers to be put in the spotlight. Sure, I'm being sarcastic, but nonetheless I like the category being the place for those movies actually seen by the majority of Oscar telecast viewers.

Here's some great news for all those who felt left out of the Beowulf IMAX 3D experience: 100 new IMAX screens will be installed in cinemas throughout the U.S. over the next three years. According to the Hollywood Reporter, IMAX made a deal with AMC Entertainment to put its digital projection systems in 33 of the theater chain's locations. The first 50 will begin installation next July, with 25 more installed in 2009 and a final 25 installed in 2010. Apparently this will double the amount of IMAX 3D screens in the country. Had this happened prior to the release of Beowulf, the movie could have been twice as popular -- and twice as big a hit (currently it is just barely a success).

This is a big deal, considering I always just imagined IMAX screens were a luxury. Now more people will be able to see the IMAX 3D versions of Monsters vs.Aliens and Avatar if they are available in the format (I don't see why they wouldn't be). I didn't even really like my recent experience with IMAX 3D, yet I did promise to give it another shot. Unfortunately, it seems IMAX is more interested in broadening its reach rather than concentrating on my own satisfaction. Yeah, I'd be pretty stupid if I thought they'd spend money on fixing the problems I alone have with the format, but I will optimistically imagine the company will at least try to make the new locations as close to perfect as possible. Since AMC will be in charge of reconstructing its existing auditoriums, I hope that they fix the usual seating arrangement so all viewers have the same optimal experience.